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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1109/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2015AY 2007-083 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 upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the source of cash credits and unexplained expenditure.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT and did not provide any details regarding bank deposits and credit card payments. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on AIR information due to the assessee's failure to furnish explanations.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of unexplained bank deposits and credit card payments are justified when the assessee fails to discharge the initial onus of proof.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

Hearing: 3.12.2015Pronounced: 3.12.2015

PER B.R.BASKARAN,AM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01-11-2011 passed by Ld CIT(A)-26, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.15,28,500/- and Rs.5,63,850/- made by the assessing officer.

2.

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.

2

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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

3 आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबागीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →