ASHOK ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 26/02/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a partner in the firm M/s Business India and Director in M/s Business India Publication India Ltd., M/s Business India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Business India Television International Ltd., filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 2,90,000/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) was served upon the assessee and in response thereof the authorized representative appeared before the AO and filed the details called for.

As per the AIR information, the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- from M/s Aldeia Branca Real Estate Resorts and Properties Pvt. Ltd., Goa during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to submit the details along with the supporting documents. Accordingly, the AR of the assessee submitted as under: ‘Mr. Ashok Advani has given an interest free advance of Rs. 11,00,000/- around 15-20 years back. However, while repaying the said advance, through over sight, the company deducted tax at source of Rs. 1,24,630/- on the said repayment. It was purely a loan repayment. It is not the income of Mr. Ashok Advani.”

In the absence of any documentary evidence, the AO treated the said amount as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. After making other additions AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 15,27,000/- (rounded off). In first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the AO.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective ground:-

This case was fixed for hearing on 24/10/2017. When the case was called up for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We notice that on the last three successive dates of hearing, the case was adjourned due to none appearance of the assessee. From the acknowledgement attached with the file, we are satisfied that the assessee has received the notice on 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 19/09/2017 well in advance before the date of hearing. From the conduct of the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee is no longer interested in pursuing its appeal. We, therefore, decided to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material on record after hearing the Departmental Representative (DR).

The Ld. DR relying on the findings of the authorities below submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim that the amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- received by 8. We have perused the material on record in the light of the submissions made by the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the contention of the assessee holding that there is no basis to believe that the amount in question had been given by the assessee as advance and the debtor returned the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed this ground of appeal holding as under:

As per the AIR information, the assessee has received the amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- from M/s. Aldeia Branca Real Estate Resorts & Properties Ltd. Goa during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration as fees for professional/technical services. Since, the assessee has failed to substantiate its contention, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee has received the amount in question as fees for professional/technical services rendered by him to the company. Hence, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). We, therefore, uphold the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed the sole ground of appeal of the assessee.