MANOJ C PANDURKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(2)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 16.9.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-44, Mumbai dated 5.7.2016 for the assessment year 2010-2011. In this appeal, assessee raised the following solitary ground which reads as under:- “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO and Ld CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,50,000/- total income on account that the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the loan lenders by overlooking the fact that, the source of the funds was properly explained during the course of assessment proceedings.”

The only issue raised in this appeal relates to confirming of addition of Rs. 11.50 lakhs. This amount constitutes to loan credits from different parties. On the ground of lack of creditworthiness, Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition which is confirmed by the CIT (A). Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned ground. 3. Before me, none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. In fact, there was non-compliance to the dates by the assessee before the CIT (A), which made the CIT (A) to confirm the additions after granting various opportunities.

On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities in general and paras 3 and 4 of the CIT (A)’s order, I find, the said paras are relevant wherein the CIT (A) discussed the issue at length before dismissing the appeal of the assessee. For the sake completeness of this order, the said paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order are extracted as under:- “3. From the above, it is evident that sufficient opportunities of being heard have been allowed to the appellant. This implies that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of on the basis of material on record. 4. In the assessment order addition of Rs. 11,50,000/- was made u/s 68 because deposit opportunities given the assessee to establish the genuineness of transaction as well as the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The AO also made addition of Rs. 51,833/- because the appellant had not included this amount in his income. During the appeal proceeding the appellant has not furnished any written explanation and / or detail against additions made in the order u/s 143(3) passed by the AO and therefore, it is held that the AO was justified in making the additions in his order. The same are hereby confirmed. Ground of appeal