Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: -
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer (ITO 23(1)(3)) erred in adding the following to income for the non-production of documentary evidences. a. Cash deposited in bank which is Rs.10,35,777.00 accounted for b. Interest paid on housing loan Rs.59,634.00 c. Professional fees Rs.66,000.00 d. Disallowance of expenses Rs.86,565.00 Total Rs.12,47,966.00
2. The appellant pleads that he has the required bills, documents to prove the expense/incomes and also able to show evidences for cash deposit in the bank if he is given the opportunity.
3. The appeal was fixed by the Registry for hearing before the Tribunal on 22.07.2015, 20.07.2016, 22.02.2017 and 13.07.2017. Neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared before the Tribunal on the above dates. Thus we decide the case after going through the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), that of the Ld. CIT(A), the materials available on record and the arguments of the Ld. DR. 4. The assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 12.09.2009 declaring taxable income of Rs.1,66,677/-. The business of the assessee is website designing. The assessee follows cash system of accounting. The AO received AIR information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,35,755/- in the ICICI Bank Ltd. There was no compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices sent by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the AO made the following disallowances on the basis of documents available on record. As the assessee failed to file the details, the AO made a disallowance of cash deposit of Rs.10,35,755/- in the ICICI Bank Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act.
As per the balance sheet filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had availed car loan and motor bike loan. However, there was no car loan appearing in the balance sheet as a liability, nor any supporting evidence was furnished by the assessee for the same. In the computation of the total income, the assessee has deducted interest on housing loan from his business income of Rs.59,624/- which the AO disallowed as the assessee failed to substantiate his claim. Since the assessee failed to file supporting evidence/document in support of his claim on receipt of professional fee of Rs.50,000/- from Ocean Diving Center Ltd. on 31.03.2009 and Rs.16,000/- from Ocean Vessel Management Pvt. Ltd. on 31.03.2009, the AO made an addition of the above sum to the total income of the assessee. The AO also disallowed 50% of the expenses of Rs.1,73,131/- under different heads where personal uses could not be ruled out. The disallowance comes to Rs.86,565/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Again there was no compliance by the assessee to the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that numerous opportunity was given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee to explain his case. The assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) to explain his case. Therefore, as the assessee failed to file any material to controvert the finding of the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
As mentioned earlier, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR submits that as there was no compliance by the assessee to the notices issued by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A), the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the assessee failed to explain before the AO the source and nature of cash deposits of Rs.10,35,755/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. The assessee also failed to substantiate his claim of deduction of interest on housing loan of Rs.59,624/-. The assessee further failed to file evidence in respect of receipt of professional fee of Rs.50,000/- from Ocean Diving Center Ltd. and Rs.16,000/- from Ocean Vessel Management Pvt. Ltd. The assessee also failed to explain before the AO its claim of expenses of Rs.1,73,131/-. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/09/2017. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/09/2017 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-