YASINALI MOHAMEDHUSAIN MULKHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice was sent by RPAD on more than one occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer received AIR information about the amounts deposited by the assessee into the bank account and also the details about the expenditure incurred through credit cards. Since the assessee failed to furnish any details relating to the same, the AO assessed the bank deposits aggregating to Rs.15,28,500/- and the credit card payments amounting to Rs.5,63,850/- as income of the assessee. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee did not appear and hence the Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same.

Before us also, the assessee has failed to appear. Further, he has not filed any details that may compel us to interfere with the order of Ld CIT(A). It is a well settled proposition of the law that the initial onus to prove the cash credits and unexplained expenditure lies upon the assessee. In the instant case, we notice that the assessee has failed to discharge the initial burden of proof placed upon him u/s 68 and 69C of the Act and hence both the impugned additions have been made. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming both the additions referred above.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd Dec 2015. (संदीप गोसधई/SANDEEP GOSAIN) (बी.आर.बधस्करि/ B.R.BASKARAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य/Judicial Member ऱेखध सदस्य /Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated.. 3rd Dec,2015 व.नि.स./ SRL, Sr. PS

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned 6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. आदेशानुसाय/ BY ORDER,सहामक ऩंजीकाय (Asstt.