Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee u/s.253 of the Income Tax Act is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [ld. CIT(A)] (Appeals)-23, Mumbai dated 28.03.2013 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in i. Upholding share benefit from Bhagchandani Trust (AOP) at Rs.29,89,850/- instead of Rs.21,61,269/- as shown in the computation of income of the appellant under the head "Other Sources" on the ground that the deduction claimed @ 30% amounting to Rs.8,28,681/- u/s. 24(a) of the I T Act, is applicable only if the said share benefit is taxed in the hands of the Appellant under the head "House Property Income" ignoring the fact that the house property income has been shown in computation of income of Bhagchandani Trust (AOP) and the net share benefit on allocation of AOP income is taxed in the hands of the appellant. ii. Holding and treating the gift of Rs.17,50,000/- given by the appellant to the donee as unexplained income ignoring the fact that the said amount of gifts were given out of her capital account as evident from the statement of affairs as on 31st March 2009 already placed on record. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly permit the appellant to produce the details of gift either before AO or before CIT(A) and for that purpose remit the matter before the appropriate lower authority.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 03.12.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 20,61,344/-. The assessment was completed under section 144. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing the assessment order besides the other addition and disallowance disallowed the deduction @ 30% claimed under section 24(a) and treated the gift of Rs. 17,50,000/- as unexplained income. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) both the addition/disallowance was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
None appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice. The perusal of the record reveals that assessee has sought adjournment on 07.10.2015, 25.10.2016 and again on 03.11.2016 thereafter neither the assessee nor her representative appeared before us. We left no option except to hear the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR for the Revenue argued that assessee was non-co-operative during the assessment proceeding and as well as before the First Appellate Proceeding. It was further argued that assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim with regard to disallowance of deduction under section 24(a) as well as disallowance of gift of Rs. 17,50,000/-.
We have considered the submission of ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the orders of authorities below. Ground No.1 relates to upholding share benefit from Bhagchandani Trust(AOP) at Rs. 29,89,850/- in place of Rs.21,61,269/- shown in computation under the head ‘other source’. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 and made the addition/disallowance under section 24(a) and treated the gift as income of the assessee from other sources. Before the First Appellate Authority neither the assessee nor his representative appeared on the date of hearing fixed on 15.05.2012, 10.07.2012, 25.07.2012 and 30.08.2012 and finally on 25.10.2012. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that the assessee has not filed any documentary evidences to substantiate its contentions. Before us neither the representative of assessee came forward to explain the fact nor any evidence is filed thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld CIT(A), hence this ground of appeal
is dismissed.
5. Ground No.2 related to confirming the addition on account of gift. The AO disallowed the gift in absence of any documentary evidences. Before first appellate authority again no evidence was furnished, thus the action of AO was confirmed. Before us neither the assessee has appeared nor filed any detailed submission or any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A). Hence , this ground of appeal is also failed.
5. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. .
Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of November, 2017.