MEENAL M GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3886/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 February 2018AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide substantiating evidence for their claims and that the CIT(A) had considered all contentions. Therefore, no interference with the CIT(A)'s decision was warranted.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee declared additional income of Rs. 45,10,520/- on account of excess cash, unrecorded sales, and excess stock. However, the assessee later withdrew these affirmations in their return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of excess cash, unrecorded sales, and excess stock are justified, given the assessee's subsequent retraction of their initial declarations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh KumarSmt. Meenal M. Gandhi

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Hearing: 22.01.2018Pronounced: 13.02.2018

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-31, Mumbai dated 24.03.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

At the outset we would like to mention that none appeared on behalf of the assessee or non there was any application for adjournment despite service of notice through RPAD. We also noticed from the order sheet that on the previous occasions, i.e. 26.11.2015 and 22.01.2017 there was no appearance by the assessee before the Bench. Therefore the case is being disposed off on merit after hearing the learned D.R.

3.

Assessee has raised the following rounds of appeal: - “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31 erred in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/=of cash actually found and as per Cash Book ; 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 31 failed to appreciated the fact that actually there was no excess cash found during the survey; Smt. Meenal M. Gandhi 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -31 erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 15,10,520/- as difference in Stock ; 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -31 erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/= being the unrecorded sales ; 5. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 31 also failed to appreciate that the books of account were audited and failed to point out any discrepancies in the books of account of the appellant: 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals- 31 failed to consider the retraction letter filed by the assessee immediately after the Survey”

4.

The brief facts of the case are that a survey was conducted on the assessee under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 09.09.2009 wherein the assessee declared additional income in relation to the discrepancies found during the survey as under: -

S.No. Disclosure on account Amount disclosed 1 Excess cash found 3,00,000/- 2 Unrecorded sales 27,00,000/- 3 Excess stock found 15,10,520/- Total 45,10,520/- The assessee did not declare the said income in the return of income filed for the year under consideration thus withdrawing the affirmations made on oath on 10.09.2009. Thereafter the AO after issuing show cause notice added the entire amount of `45,10,520/- to the income of the assessee by framing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income at `58,90,020/-.

5.Aggrieved assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the various contentions and submissions made by the assessee. In respect of addition of `3,00,000/- the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not offer any explanation nor could the file any evidence to substantiate its claim that her signatures on the inventory/statement were ante-dated and thus confirmed the addition. In respect of addition of `15,10,520/- the declaration of stock made during

Smt. Meenal M. Gandhi the survey was not correct and thus dismissed the same and in respect of addition of `27,00,000/- it represents addition on account of unrecorded sales. The learned CIT(A) recorded the same observation and thus confirmed the addition.

5.

A careful perusal the order of the CIT(A) reveals that the CIT(A) has considered all the contentions raised by the assessee before confirming various additions amounting to `45,10,520/-. Nothing has been brought before us during the course of hearing to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A). After hearing the ld DR and considering the merits of the case we are of the opinion that ld CIT(A) has decided the issue after considering the contentions and submissions of the assessee and the order of ld CIT(A) does not require any interference and therefore, we are inclined to confirm the same.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 132A

All 569 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →