Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Shri Ashok Kumar Singh
सुनवाई की तायीख / : 15.03.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख/ : 25.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai, dated 10.01.2013, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w. Sec. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 30.12.2010 for A.Y 2008-09. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Allowance of Cash deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only)
2. Removal of Penalty charged on me.
3. Removal of interest charged on the above.”
P a g e | Shri Ashok C. Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1) 2. We may herein observe that the appeal filed by the assessee involve a delay of 143 days. The assessee explaining the reason leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal, had filed an affidavit deposing the facts leading to the said delay. We find that the assessee had stated that during the relevant period he was attacked by his employee, as a result whereof during the ensuing period he because of physical injuries was not able to work to his full strength. The assessee in order to substantiate his aforesaid claim had placed on record a copy of the FIR filed against the employee. It was thus the claim of the assessee that because of the attack on his life by his employee, he thereafter could not fully attend to his work and for the said reason had failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time period. The assessee in order to fortify his aforesaid claim, had also placed on record a local newspaper cutting reporting the aforesaid incident. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the appeal and are of the considered view that as it is a matter of a substantiated fact that during the period under consideration there was an attempt on the life of the assessee, therefore, he was unable to attend to his work and had resultantly failed to file the present appeal before us within the stipulated time period. We thus are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the request of the assessee applicant seeking condonation of delay involved in the filing of the appeal merits acceptance. We thus condone the delay of 143 days involved in filing of the appeal.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee who is engaged in the business of dealing in electronic components had filed his return of income for A.Y 2008-09 on 30.09.2008, declaring net taxable income of Rs.4,01,277/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Act. On the basis of certain declaration of assets which were made by the assessee as a prospective candidate for the Lok Sabha Election in the public domain of Election Commission of India, his case was reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act. The assessee in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148 of the Act, P a g e | Shri Ashok C. Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1) submitted vide his letter dated 12.07.2010 that his original return of income be treated as having been filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec.
The aforesaid request of the assessee was accepted by the A.O who thereafter issued notices under Sec. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O observing that the books of account of the assessee were defective and could not be relied upon, rejected the same by taking recourse to the provisions of Sec. 145(3) of the Act. The A.O while framing the assessment observed that a perusal of the saving bank account of the assessee with Union Bank of India, Branch: Bhandup, Mumbai, revealed certain cash deposits. It was observed by the A.O that there were substantial cash deposits in the aforesaid bank account of the assessee, viz. (i) Rs.3,65,000/- on 22.08.2007; (ii) Rs.15,00,000/- on 27.08.2007; (iii) Rs.6,50,000/- on 28.08.2007; and (iv) Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.10.2007. The A.O noticed that the assessee despite being afforded sufficient opportunity, failed to establish the ‘nature’ and ‘source’ of the credits appearing in his aforesaid bank account. It was gathered by the A.O that a credit of Rs.15,00,000/- in the aforesaid bank account was followed by a withdrawal of the same amount, against a noting, viz. ‘Chandan Enterprises’ on the same day. It was furthr observed by the A.O that the assessee had most conveniently omitted to furnish the page containing the bank transactions for the month August 2007 while placing on record the bunch of the bank statements of his proprietary business. It was thus observed by the A.O that though the cash deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- appeared in the aforesaid saving bank account of the assessee with Union Bank of India, Branch: Bhandup, however, no mention of the said amount did figure in the business accounts of the assessee. Since the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was the peak credit during the year, the same was added by the A.O as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. The A.O interalia making an addition of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the aforesaid peak cash credit under Sec.68 of the Act, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.42,18,846/-.
P a g e | Shri Ashok C. Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1) 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions advanced by the assessee before him, observed that the assessee had not been able to establish the source of the credits, despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity by the A.O. The CIT(A) being of the view that as the bank statements were not to be treated as books of account, though upheld the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made by the A.O but under Sec.69 of the Act.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. We find that the assessee appellant despite being put to notice as regards the date of hearing of the appeal, had neither put up an appearance before us nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed by him. We thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts are constrained to proceed with the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and dispose off the same after hearing the respondent and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. We find that it remains as a matter of fact that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- of cash deposit was made on 27.08.2007 in saving bank account No. 315801010036077 of the assessee with Union Bank of India, Branch: Bhandup, Mumbai. It was further observed by the A.O that there were other substantial cash deposits in the said bank account, viz. Rs.3,65,000/- on 22.08.2007; Rs.6,50,000/- on 28.08.2007; and Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.10.2007. Except for the amounts of Rs.6,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, there were also debit entries in the bank account. We find that the assessee despite being afforded sufficient opportunity had failed to substantiate the nature and source of the aforesaid credits before the lower authorities. We find that the A.O observing that the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was the peak credit in the aforesaid bank account during the year under consideration, had thus added the same as an unexplained cash credit under Sec. 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) also not being persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits and withdrawals in his bank account being regular and routine transactions, were thus not to be treated as his income, found himself to be in agreement with the view taken by the A.O that the assessee P a g e | Shri Ashok C. Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1) had failed to substantiate the aforesaid credits and upheld the addition of Rs.15 lac, though under Sec. 69 of the Act. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and are of the considered view that neither anything emerges from the record, nor any material had been filed before us which could persuade us to conclude that the findings of the lower authorities were in any way perverse or contrary to the material available on record. We thus, finding no reason to dislodge the well reasoned order of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration, uphold the addition of Rs.15,00,000/-as had been sustained by the CIT(A) under Sec. 69 of the Act. The Ground of appeal
No. 1 is dismissed.
6. We further find that the contention of the assessee seeking removal of penalty charged on him does not emerges from the order of the CIT(A). We may herein observe that as the A.O had only initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) in his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, therefore, even otherwise the aforesaid claim of the assessee being premature is dismissed. The Ground of appeal No. 2 is dismissed.
7. The assessee had assailed the levy of interest under Sec. 234B and 234C of the Act by the A.O. We are of the considered view that the charging of interest under the aforesaid statutory provisions, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghasawal (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) is mandatory. We thus, being of the view that as the levy of interest under Sec. 234B and 234C would be consequential, therefore, dismiss the Ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee before us.
8. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2018 (G.S. Pannu) (Ravish Sood) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 25.05.2018 Ps. Rohit P a g e | Shri Ashok C. Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1)