MRUDULA C. VORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3536/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 October 2017AY 2009-103 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 additions made by the lower authorities. Since the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal and did not produce any evidence, the Tribunal had no alternative but to endorse the actions of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned an addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit and a disallowance of Rs. 80,19,820/- on account of Futures & Options (F&O) loss. The assessee failed to provide evidence for both these amounts before the AO, CIT(A), and the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of F&O loss are justified when the assessee fails to provide supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Hearing: 17.08.2017Pronounced: 13.10.2017

Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.02.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

One of the effective grounds taken by the assessee relates to confirmation of addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The short facts of the case are that there was information from AIR that assessee maintained bank account with Axis Bank wherein

2 Mrs. Mrudula C. Vora cash deposit of Rs.10,80,000/- was found. Assessee was able to produce the evidence in respect of Rs.4,80,000/- but in respect of Rs.6,00,000/- assessee could not produce any evidence before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3.

Before us, the assessee did not remain present and no evidence was produced before us. Therefore, we have no alternative except to endorse the action of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of the appeal is dismissed.

4.

Another effective ground taken by the assessee relates to disallowance of F&O loss of Rs.80,19,820/-. In respect of disallowance of loss arising from F&O transactions of Rs.80,19,820/- the assessee was asked to furnish broker’s note and Dmat account. However, assessee did not file any details. Therefore, loss of Rs.80,19,820/- was denied.

5.

Before us, the assessee did not remain present and no evidence was produced before us. Therefore, we have no alternative except to endorse the action of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →