Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 13th September 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–30, Mumbai, for assessment year 2009–10.
The only dispute in the present appeal is confined to the addition of ` 32,21,000 sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while examining the bank account of the assessee with HDFC
2 Shri Dharmen Doshi Bank, noticed that the assessee has received an amount of ` 48,40,000 from Shri Ajay Joshi, and re–paid an amount of ` 40 lakh. Further, he found that he has paid an amount of ` 2.25 lakh to Shri Ajay Joshi, from ICICI Bank account. Therefore, as on 31st March 2009, an amount of ` 6.50 lakh remained payable to Shri Ajay Joshi. When called to explain, the assessee submitted he had taken loan of ` 48,40,000 from Shri Ajay Joshi and re–paid an amount of ` 42,25,000. He further found that the assessee on 7th August 2008 and 1st December 2008, had paid ` 1,50,000 and ` 70 lakh respectively to Smt. Sangita Joshi, and has received ` 1 crore from her on 31st March 2009. When called upon to explain, the assessee had submitted that he had taken loan of ` 1 crore from Smt. Sangita Joshi. The Assessing Officer observed that in the balance sheet as on 31st March 2009, Shri Ajay Joshi and Smt. Sangita Joshi have not been shown as creditor. He, therefore, concluded that the amount aggregating to ` 1,48,40,000 deposited in the bank account is income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and added back at the hands of the assessee. Assessee challenged the addition in appeal before the first appellate authority.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material brought on record, found that ` 1 crore credited in the bank account is 3 Shri Dharmen Doshi out of total sale proceeds of ` 1.71 lakh of Krishna Apartment held jointly with his wife. He also found that sale transaction has been confirmed by the buyer of the property. He, therefore, deleted the addition of ` 1 crore. As far as balance amount of ` 48.40 lakh being loan received from Shri Ajay Joshi, is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the evidence brought on record, found that the amount of ` 4,65,000 remained unexplained. Therefore, while deleting the amount of ` 4,65,000, he added back the amount of ` 4,65,000. Further, it is pertinent to mention here in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while examining the account with ICICI Bnak found a deposit of ` 26.06 lakh made by the assessee on 19th July 2008. As per the narration in the bank account, it was stated to have been received from A–1 Sales Corporation. On examination, the Assessing Officer found that neither the amount is reflected in the Profit & Loss account nor in the balance sheet. There are no sundry creditors for the said amount. Accordingly, he treated it as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the remand report and observing that the assessee has accepted the same confirmed the addition.
When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present for the assessee. We find that on several occasions when the appeal was 4 Shri Dharmen Doshi posted for hearing no one had appeared from the assessee. Even hearing notice issued through RPAD in the address provided by the assessee in Form no.36 has returned un–served by the postal authorities with remark “left”. From the aforesaid facts, it is noticed that the assessee is not too serious in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, considering the fact that enough opportunity has already been granted to the assessee we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex– parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.
As could be seen from the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) only addition sustained by him is, out of the amount of ` 48.40 lakh claimed to have been taken from Shri Ajay Joshi, the amount of ` 6.15 lakh which could not be properly explained with evidence. Before us, the assessee has neither appeared nor produced any evidence explaining the source of the addition of ` 6.15 lakh sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue.
As far as addition of ` 26.06 lakh is concerned, as observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of acceptance of the remand report by the assessee, he confirmed the addition. As aforesaid factual finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has 5 Shri Dharmen Doshi not be controverted by the assessee, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.12.2016