Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA
Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2005-06.
The short facts of the case are as under:
The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has observed that this case was reopened on the basis of AIR information of non-filers received with regard to credit card payment of Rs.2,46,241/- through Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore. Since the assessee has not filed return of income or submitted any explanation for filing the return, the case was reopened by issuing
2 M/s. Rajendra Jayant Eklahare notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act dated 09.03.2012 and served on the assessee on 13/3/2012 asking the assessee to file the return within 30 days. However, the assessee has not complied with the notice issued u/s.148.
Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) considering the remand report had decided the appeal by observing as under: “12. I have carefully gone through the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, remand report of the AO, rejoinder filed by the appellant and the material available on record, My observations are as under:- 12.1 It is observed from the assessment order that since the appellant did not file the return of income relates to PAN AADPE2153R or any details with regard to the source of credit card paymer.t of Rs.2,46,241/- made through Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, the AO treated the said payment of Rs. 2,46,241/- as unexplained expenses u/s.690. It appears that the appellant has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 from PAN AACPE7860L with the Income-tax Department showing income of Rs.2,05,579/-. However, no credit card details has been shown as apparent from the copy of said return of income filed during appellate proceedings. 12.2 It is observed from the submission dated 11.07.2016 filed during the appellate proceedings that the appellant has admitted that the IT. Department informed the appellant vide letter 24.11.2006 of existence of another PAN AADPE2153R in the name of the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant vide letter dated 21.12.2006 requested the Department to cancel the said PAN AADPE2I53R. 12.3 It is on record that the AIR information about credit card expenses for F.Y. 200405 related to A.Y. 2005-06 pertain to the PAN AADPE2153R and not the PAN AACPE7860L through which the appellant has filed the ROI for A.Y. 2005-06. Moreover, the appellant in another submission filed on 14.11.2016 has admitted that the said credit card expenses are shown in his ROI for A.Y. 2005-06.This factual position establishes beyond doubt that during the year under consideration the appellant has used the PAN AADPE2153R for the purpose of credit cards issued by Standard Chartered Bank. It was only when the Department has issued letter dated 24.11.2006 to the appellant, he has acted upon it with a request to cancel the duplicate PAN, both being utilized in his financial transactions.
3 M/s. Rajendra Jayant Eklahare 12.4 Since holding two PANs and using them simultaneously for financial transaction by a person is prohibited under the IT. Act, I donor find any justification to allow the expenses through PAN which is used but disowned later on notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has claimed that the payments to these credit cards were made from North Kanara GSB Coop Bank Ltd and Bank of Baroda accounts of Neeta Impex proprietor Shri Rajendra Eklahare. The appellant could not establish before the undersigned that the cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,97,582/- as personal expenses and Rs.48,658/- as business expenses being reflected in his return of income are relatable to the credit card expenses of Rs.2,46,241/- as per the AIR information received by the AO. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the issue involved, in my opinion, no interference is called for with respect to credit card payment of Rs.2,46,241/- which has been treated as unexplained expenses u/s.69C of the I.T. Act. Hence, the addition is confirmed. Thus grounds of appeal no. 1 and 2 are dismissed.”
4. Having heard the Ld. D.R., I find that assessee did not produce any evidence before me. Therefore, I do not find any alternative except to endorse the action of Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2017.