KINTU KISHORE BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(1), MUMBAI

The aforesaid appeal, at the instance, of assessee is against the order dated 2.5.2013 of Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-19, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2005-06.

We find from the record that there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal. The ld.AR vide letter dated 29th March,2017 expressly and elaborately stated the reasons for delay. We are satisfied with the reasons advanced by the ld.AR for delay of one day in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee is as under :

Facts of the case are that the present proceedings before us emanated from the set aside proceedings in which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 8.6.2011 passed in (AY-2005-06) restored back the issue of addition of Rs.3,50,000/- to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO again made the same addition by observing as under: “The assessee in support of its claim has not submitted any documentary evidence showing that when this loan was taken or other details in this regard. A mere statement that the relatives were reluctant to accept back the loan cannot be enough to substantiate the cash credit. Since the assessee has treated the money as its own and taken the amount to its capital account, the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is taxable in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above facts and on the basis of the findings given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T V Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd 222 ITR 344(SC), assessee is not eligible for any relief in respect of cash credit”

In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) also sustained the addition as made by the AO by observing and holding as under : “4.3.2 In the instant case neither at the assessment stage nor at the appellate stage, he appellant has furnished any detail of loan nor details of bank account nor detail whether the cheques were put in business or personal account. Since the factual details are not provided by the appellant, it is not possible to verify the claim of the appellant in view of the directions given by ITAT. Therefore, the addition made by 3 5610/Mum/2013 the AO is upheld and the claim of the appellant is dismissed. Ground is dismissed.”

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us on record including the impugned orders. In the present case, the Tribunal had restored the issue back to the file of AO to examine the issue after providing necessary opportunity to the assessee to furnish documentary evidences as may be provided by the assessee at the set aside proceedings. The assessee, neither in the set aside proceedings nor during the appellate proceedings filed any clinching evidence to substantiate her case. Before us also, nothing has been filed to controvert the conclusion taken by lower authorities which warrant us to take a different view. Therefore, we are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on this issue for want of necessary documentary evidences in support of her claim. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.