SH. MAQBOOL HASAN MOHD NAZIM KHAN,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4001/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 January 2016AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the difference in sales with M/s Sahil Fabrics remained unreconciled even after considering additional evidence. In the absence of a plausible explanation, the addition made by the AO was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing grey cloth, declared income and agricultural income. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted a difference between sales shown by the assessee and sales recorded by M/s Sahil Fabrics and other concerns, treating it as suppression of sales.

What were the issues?

Whether the unreconciled difference in sales between the assessee and third-party concerns constitutes suppression of income, and if so, whether the addition made by the AO is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jadhav-DR
Hearing: 14/01/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21/02/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, challenging the addition of Rs.2,50,014/-, being the difference in sales, shown by the assessee to M/s Sahil Fabrics and other related concerns and sales shown by those parties in their books of accounts which were not reconciled by the assessee and treating the same as suppression of sales.

2.

During hearing of this appeal, nobody was present for the assessee, in spite of issuance of RPAD notice dated 31/12/2015, sent to the assessee at the address given in column no. 10 (form no.36), signed by the assessee. The assessee neither presented himself nor moved any adjournment petition, therefore, I have no option but to proceed ex-parte qua the assessee, and tend to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR, Shri V.S. Jadhav, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee at the relevant time was engaged in the business of manufacturing of grey cloth under the name and style of M.H. Textiles, declared income of Rs.2,63,696/- and agricultural income of Rs.10,000/- in his return, accompanied by statement of computation of income, audit report u/s 44AB in Form no.3CB and 3CD, manufacturing and trading account, profit & loss account, balance sheet, capital account and other details, filed on 31/10/2006. The ld. Assessing Officer examined the profit (GP & NP) of for the last two years, as has been mentioned at page 2 of the assessment order. M/s Sahil Fabrics, vide letter dated 29/08/2008, it is noted that the ld. Assessing Officer has examined the issue in detail with respect to non-reconcilement of purchases/sale. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), various copies of bills were filed in the form of additional evidence by the assessee. The ld.AO was asked to file remand report, which was filed on 07/06/2012, which has been reproduced at page 4 onwards of the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority. After examining the remand report, filed by the Assessing Officer, and the submissions/evidences of the assessee, so far as, the difference in amount with M/s Mundhara Fabrics is concerned, the Assessing Officer, on verification of the bills, accepted the claim of the assessee. However, with respect to the impugned amount, on account of M/s Sahil Fabrics, is concerned, the same remained un-conciled even after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee showed less sales amounting to Rs.2,50,014/- as compare to the sales actually made and admitted by the group, thus, in the absence of any plausible explanation, I find no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order, consequently, the appeal of the assessee is having no merit, therefore, dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 14/01/2016.

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →