MOHAMAD YUSUF ABDULLA KARBHARI,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 524/AHD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 February 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)4 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 dismissed the assessee's appeal as the assessee failed to appear and provide explanations for the additions. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal based on the available records and the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and provide required details, leading to ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting some additions but confirming others. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was also dismissed due to non-appearance and delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the receipts of Rs. 24,58,760/- were unexplained cash credits and whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans and expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 12/02/2024Pronounced: 21/02/2024

PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 14/08/2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: I. On the facts and circumstances of the case of your appellant, the Ld.A.O. has erred in treating the receipts of Rs.24,58,760/- as unexplained cash credit. Therefore, you appellant prays your goodself to delete the addition made by the Ld.A.O. of Rs.24,58,760/- and request your goodself to hold so.

3.

Return of income was filed on 30/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.10,06,520/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and subsequently notice Asst.Year 2012-13 2

u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” in short) dated 23/09/2013 were issued and duly served on the assessee. Subsequence statutory notices were issued to the assessee but assessee neither attended nor furnished the required details. Show-cause notice dated 09/03/2015 was issued to the assessee along with notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer finalized the assessment u/s.144 of the Act, thereby observing that the assessee failed to prove genuineness of unsecured loans receipts/deposits and expenses. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.3,80,000/- on the basis of cash deposited in bank accounts, addition of Rs.59,20,668/- on account of unsecured loans obtained during the year and addition of Rs,.67,876/- towards debt write off.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notices on several occasions. The notices were duly served as the remark of the Postal Authorities reflects “LEFT”. Since the assessee has not given any fresh address to the Registry, we are proceeding the appeal on the basis of the records available before us including the order of CIT(A) and assessment order.

6.

The Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A), in fact, has given a proper relief thereby deleting the substantive addition and only confirmed the addition in respect of receipts of Rs.24,58,760/- as unexplained cash credit. Asst.Year 2012-13 3

7.

We have heard Ld.DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. In respect of unexplained cash credits, the CIT(A) has categorically taken into account the assessee’s submissions and the evidences in respect of the amount received by the assessee to the extent of Rs.43,50,000/- from Shri Chetan Vyas and after taking the cognizance of the sale-deed has confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs as the assessee could not explain the said amount received from Shri Yatin Trivedi as per the contentions of the assessee before the CIT(A). As regards the disallowances of Rs.58,760/- and 6,00,000/- are concerned, the assessee failed to file any evidence during the assessment proceedings or during the remand proceedings as observed by the CIT(A) and, therefore, the same was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). There is a delay of three days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has not given any explanation for condonation of delay. In light of this and the observation on merit, we dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 21st February,2024 at Ahmedabad. (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad, Dated 21/02/2024 ट".सी.नायर, व."न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Asst.Year 2012-13

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-

5.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स"या"पत ""त ////

सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →