RAM BABURAO SALVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1647/MUM/2016Status: HeardITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2011-123 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 confirmed the order of the Principal CIT, finding no material to show the Assessing Officer had examined the issue or that the Principal CIT's view was unsustainable. The assessee failed to appear or provide any counter-evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of unexplained bank deposits as business income. The Principal CIT revised this, directing it to be assessed as income from other sources, deeming the original assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether unexplained bank deposits should be treated as business income or income from other sources, and the validity of revisionary powers exercised by the Principal CIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Hearing: 29.5.2017Pronounced: 29.5.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 10.2.2016 passed by learned Principal CIT-17, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is challenging the validity of revision order passed by learned Principal learned CIT(A).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. The assessee is a transport contractor and container handling transport contractor. He filed his return of income declaring total income of ` 13.15 lakhs. Assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer made addition of unexplained bank deposits aggregating to ` 1,59,93,300/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

2 Shri Ram Baburao Salve The Assessing Officer assessed the same as business income of the assessee and accordingly allowed set off of brought forward losses. Learned Principal learned CIT took the view that addition made u/s. 68 of the Act should not have been treated as “business income” of the assessee and it should have been assessed as income from other sources. Accordingly, he came to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. After allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee, learned Principal CIT directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income relating to unexplained bank deposits under the head “income from other sources”. Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Principal CIT, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer has not examined this issue and mechanically assessed unexplained bank deposits under the head “business”.

5.

We noticed that the assessee has not filed any material to show that the Assessing Officer did examine this issue and has taken possible view of the matter. Further the assessee has also failed to show that the view taken by learned Principal CIT is not sustainable. Under these set of facts, we have no other option but to confirm the order passed by learned Principal CIT.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 29.5.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →