Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
Assessee by: Shri Jayesh D. Khakhar Department by: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 04.01.2017 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 20.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2004-05.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “
1. The present appeal filed by the appellant is against the CIT(A) 35 / ITO 25(3)(1)/ITA. 338/10-11 dated ITA No.3422.M.16 A.Y. 2004-05 06.03.2013 for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 passed by the CIT(A) XXXV, Mumbai.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in not giving reasonable, proper and sufficient opportunities to the appellant for explaining and adding the income under the various heads.
3. The CIT(A) has not given reasonable sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant before making huge addition under various heads.
4. The CIT(A) has not justified in estimation of house property income of Rs.50,400/- as notional rent, since the appellant’s self occupied property flat at Kandivali whose notional rent was considered by the A.O. and the CIT(A) without considering the fact of case where the notional income of SOP of the appellant shall be nil.
5. The CIT(A) has not justified in treating the entire sale proceeds of shares of Rs.6,59,400/- as income from undisclosed source for which the written submission and explanation were submitted before the A.O. and CIT(A) at the time of hearing, which shows and reflects in the books of account that the appellant had received the actual contract notes from the broker and all the transactions were dealt with cheques only.
6. The CIT(A) not justified in estimation of expenses @ 5% on Rs.6,59,400/- (Amounting to Rs.32,970/-) U/s.69C of the Act 1961 since the said addition was not accepted by the appellant as it was wrongfully added in the hands of the income of the appellant.
7. The CIT(A) not justified in making addition on account of unproved loans of Rs.5,34,452/-, as the same loans were accepted and allowed in the previous assessment year by the A.O. and all the loans confirmations with relevant documents to show the genuineness of the transactions i.e. all the loans were opening balance of current financial year relevant to assessment year only.
ITA No.3422.M.16 A.Y. 2004-05
The CIT(A) not justified in levying the interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961.
The CIT(A) not justified in levied the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.Tax Act 1961.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 14.06.2005 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.93,838/- for the A.Y.2004-05. In this case the information was received on account of beneficiaries of Mahasagar Securities Ltd. (now Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.) Group share scam, vide DDIT (Inv.) Unit-1(v), Mumbai’s letter dated 26.03.2010. All the information was received, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened by recording the reasons and taking the necessary approvals. Notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) dated 31.03.2010 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was also issued on 03.08.2010 and duly served upon the assessee. Therefore, the income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.13,57,400/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before.
The present appeal has been filed delayed for 2 years and 11 months. At the very outset the learned departmental representative has argued that the assessee filed the present appeal delayed which is not explained properly, therefore the appeal is not liable to be entertained. On the other hand the learned representative of the assessee has argued that the delay is not willful, therefore delay is liable to be condoned. The application of 3 ITA No.3422.M.16 A.Y. 2004-05