UPMA R GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 16(1)(4), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 27, Mumbai dated 26.06.2012 for A.Y. 2008-09.

2 ITA 5786/Mum/2012 Smt. Upma R. Goyal

1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 27, Mumbai failed to appreciate that the Income Tax Officer has wrongly added a sum of Rs.29,83,310/- on account of undisclosed income u/s 68 of I T Act, 1961. 2) The learned assessing officer has wrongly charged interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) Your appellant reserves the right to add, amend delete or alter any or all the above ground of appeal each of which without prejudice to the order.”

4. After various opportunities were afforded to the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On those dates when the Bench did not function, the case was adjourned through the notice board. Even today, i.e. 07.04.2016, when the case was called, none was present on behalf of the assessee, but the learned D.R. was present and ready for Revenue. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal and therefore proceed to dispose off this appeal with the assistance of the learned D.R. for Revenue and the material on record.

5. Ground No. 1: Addition of `29,83,310/- as undisclosed income 5.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the Assessing Officer (AO) had wrongly made an addition of `29,83,310/- on account of undisclosed income. 5.2.1 We have heard the learned D.R. for Revenue in the matter and perused and carefully considered the material on record. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions put forth by the assessee, at para 4 of the impugned order has dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee holding as under: - “4. I have carefully considered the contents of the assessment order and appellant’s submissions made before me. Appellant has placed on record a copy of the sale deed executed on 22.1.2009 in 3 ITA 5786/Mum/2012 Smt. Upma R. Goyal respect of shop No. 1 on ground floor of Emmanuel Apartment. As per the sale deed, the said property was sold by one Mr. Bachhulal Gala to M/s. EL-Tronica India Ltd for a consideration of Rs.5 lakh on as is where is basis subject to the occupancy of Mr. Ravindra Goyal husband of the appellant. The aforesaid sale deed does no refer to any money paid either to the appellant or her husband Mr Ravindra Goyal In this background, I am unable to understand as to how the submissions made by the appellant discussed above and the aforesaid sale deed would explain the source of cash deposit. Appellant has no relation whatsoever with the said property. In my considered opinion, the submissions made by the AR are totally irrelevant to the issue on hand. Secondly, appellant also failed to prove ownership of any other property against which advance was received. The fact remains that appellant claims to have received the cash from M/s. Shree Gas Distributors and the said party failed to respond to the notices issued by the AO u/s. 133(6) of the Act In other words, the appellant failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit as required under law. For the purpose of Sec. 68 of the Act, the appellant has the onus to prove the transaction to the satisfaction of the A.O. that the existence of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction are to be properly explained. In the present circumstances, none of the conditions are fulfilled and the appellant failed to discharge the onus cast on her. Even for a moment appellant's explanation is taken at its face value, as rightly pointed by the AO, it is hard to believe that the same person approaches the appellant for purchase of property on several occasions and the proposed deal gets cancelled time and again and the advance money was received in cash and was returned by cheque. Even if it is considered that the cash has some relation to the property in occupation by her husband, it is not out of place to note that the said property itself was sold for a total consideration of Rs.5 lakh whereas the appellant was in receipt of Rs.22 lakh as advance for no good reason. Further, there is no consistency in the appellant’s submission dated 13.2.2012 and 21.2.2012 as to the advance amount received against the property. In my considered opinion, appellant has failed to furnish any worthwhile explanation as to the source of cash deposited in the bank. In view of the above, I do not have any option but to confirm the addition made by the A.O. Appellant fails on this ground.” 5.2.2 After considering the submissions made by the learned D.R. and the findings of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order (supra), we find that the assessee has been unable to bring on record material evidence to controvert the findings of the authorities below in respect of the source of the cash deposits in her undisclosed bank account with 4 ITA 5786/Mum/2012 Smt. Upma R. Goyal