Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, J. M.: The Present Appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, dated 11.02.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 on the following grounds of appeal.
(A.Y. 2008-09) Vishnukant Munnalal Gupta vs. ITO 1. “The learned Income Tax Officer erred in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and adding a sum of Rs.14,92,480/- to the income of your Appellant although explanations and evidences were submitted by your
Appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in dismissing the Appeal without considering the submissions made by your Appellant. 3. Your Appellant prays that the unwarranted invoking of provisions of Section 69A be set aside and instead provisions of Section 44AF be applied.”
The brief facts of the case are that the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,08,060/- was filed by the assessee on 05.01.2009. The case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee and after considering the details filed by the assessee, the AO held that since the assessee could not furnish any explanation in respect of cash deposit of Rs.13,07,900/- and cheque deposit of Rs.1,84,580/- therefore the AO held that the cash deposit of Rs.13,07,900/- and cheque deposit of Rs.1,84,580/- as un explained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act,1961 and added back the same to the total income of the assessee.
(A.Y. 2008-09) Vishnukant Munnalal Gupta vs. ITO 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the case dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 11.02.2013.
4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above.
At the very outset, it is noticed that even in spite of several notices, none has appeared on behalf of assessee and on the perusal of order sheet we have noticed that nobody was appearing on behalf of assessee for the last several dates.
Although the notices were also served upon the assessee for appearing before us, but even then the assessee has not preferred to appear and even no application for adjournment was moved today. On the other hand ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
Ground No. 1,2 &3
Since all the grounds raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related therefore we thought it fit to dispose off the same through the present common order.
(A.Y. 2008-09) Vishnukant Munnalal Gupta vs. ITO
We have perused the order of the CIT(A) and we found that the CIT(A) has duly considered all submissions made by the assessee and the operative para of CIT(A) while dealing with the afore mentioned issue is reproduced below:
“The AO’s order, the contentions of the appellant have been considered. The appellant did not furnish any explanation regarding the source of deposits before the AO inspite of opportunities being provided to him by the AO. In appeal proceedings it has been stated that a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- has been transferred from his own bank account, some cash deposits are by his principals, some are cheques deposits after receipt from his principals. The modus operandi explained is that the appellant receives cash from his principal, the appellant issues cheques for payments to suppliers from whom the principals make purchase, that the appellant earns commission form such work. The submissions are mere averments without there being anything to support the contention. There is no confirmation from any of the principals that they have in fact given the cash to the appellant for such work, or deposited the cash in his account. As regards the transfer of sum from his other bank account, there is nothing to show the source of deposit n the other bank account of the appellant as (A.Y. 2008-09) Vishnukant Munnalal Gupta vs. ITO claimed, no supporting evidence has been provided. In the absence of any evidence of the mode of carrying on business, or the carrying on of such business, the provisions of section44AF also cannot be applied as prayed. The appellant has not shown that he deposited the money, withdrew and re-deposited them again, in which circumstances, telescoping and working out of peak deposit would have been the course of action to be followed. Rather the appellant has claimed that the appellant receives cash from his principal, the appellant issues cheques for payments to suppliers from whom the principals make purchases, that the appellant earns commission from such work. Since none of the contentions of the appellant are found tenable, the action of the AO is found correct and is upheld.”
After analyzing the afore mentioned order we found that the CIT(A) has dealt with the all the issues and has passed judicious order and no circumstances have been brought before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reason to deviate or interfere into the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and hence, we reject the grounds raised by the assessee and uphold the order of the CIT(A)
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
(A.Y. 2008-09) Vishnukant Munnalal Gupta vs. ITO
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2016
Sd/- Sd/- (Jason P. Boaz) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 16.03.2016 Ps. Ashwini आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,