HEMA MEHUL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA No. : 3061/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2009-10) Hema Mehul Mehta, Vs Income Tax Officer -16(3)(1), 30, 3rd Floor, 21, D S Kapol Niwas, 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, (Sanghvi Sadan), 4th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai -400 034 S V P Road, Mumbai -400 004 �थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AHFPM 9728 B अपीलाथ� (Appellant) ��यथ� (Respondent) Appellant by None : Respondent by : Shri Vijay Shankar सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 18-08-2015 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 10-11-2015 आदेश ORDER अिमत शु�ला, �या. स.: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by CIT(A)-27, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 144 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds in its grounds of appeal :- “1) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of cash deposits of Rs. 41,63,000/-. 2) In addition to the aforesaid ground of appeal, That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,29,450/- on account of credit car payment u/s 69C of I.T. Act, 1961. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 32,849/- on account of LIC payment u/s 80C and Rs. 15,000/- on account of Mediclaim payment u/s 80D of the I.T. Act, 1961”.

2. After various opportunities given to the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. Even RPAD letter sent was returned back. Thus, appeal was heard on the basis of material on record. From the records, it is seen that even during the course of the assessment proceedings despite service of notice, the assessee did not put up any appearance and accordingly assessment was completed u/s 144 on the basis of AIR Information received that assessee has deposited Rs. 41,63,000/- in the saving Bank account and has made payments against credit cards bills for which no proper explanation had been given by the assessee. Accordingly, the sums aggregating Rs. 4,29,450/- was added u/s 69C. Besides this, the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 32,849/- & 80D of Rs. 49,000/- was also disallowed.

3. Even before the CIT(A), though authorized representative was appointed, however, he also admitted that due to non-cooperation by the assessee, the requisite details could not be furnished during the remand proceedings before the AO. The Ld. CIT(A). After considering the remand report and other material on record confirmed the additions after observing and holding as under :- 4. I have carefully considered the contents of the assessment order and the result of the remand proceedings. At the outset, I note that appellant is habituated to non cooperation and non complying with the statutory notices issued to her. At the first instance, the appellant failed to furnish any details before the A.O. thus resulting in the assessment order uls.144 of the Act. Even during the proceedings before me, the case was posted for hearing on 6 different occasions from 23.08.2012 to 28.01.2013 and the appellant was least bothered to respond to any of these notices of hearing. It was only in response to this office letter dated 18.12.2012 that no further opportunity shall be granted and the appeal will be decided based on materials available on record that the appellant chose to respond finally on 28.01.2013 requesting for remanding of the case back to the AO. Now, even after remanding the matter back to the file of the AO and despite proper opportunity 3 Hema Mehul Mehta having been given to the appellant, there is a total non co-operation on her part in not responding to the notices.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is decided based on the facts noted in the assessment order. I note that appellant has made cash deposits of Rs. 41,63,000/- in her bank account which were not explained by her as to their source as required u/s.68 of the Act. Therefore, the same are to be assessed as unexplained cash credits. Accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. is hereby upheld.

6. As regards the credit card payments of Rs. 4,29,450/- also, the appellant has not furnished any details as to the source of such expenditure. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation, the impugned expenditure is to be treated as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and the addition is upheld. Similarly, for want of evidence in the form of receipts, the deduction u/s.80C of Rs. 32,849/- and u/s.800 of Rs. 15,000/- disallowed by the A.O. is also upheld. Thus, all the additions made by the A.O. are upheld on merits.

4. After considering the submissions made by the DR and also finding given in the impugned order, we find that assessee has been unable to rebut the findings of the AO and also the source of cash deposits made in the bank account and the source of expenditure incurred. In absence of any such explanation, we do not find any reason to deviate from the findings as recorded by the CIT(A), accordingly same are confirmed.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th November, 2015. Sd/- Sd/- (रिमत कोचर) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �यायीक सद�य (RAMIT KOCHAR) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 10th November, 2015 4 Hema Mehul Mehta 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) -27, Mumbai. 4) The CIT– 16, Mumbai. 5) िवभागीय �ितिनिध “H”, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ The D.R. “H” Bench, Mumbai. 6) गाड� फाईल \ Copy to Guard File. आदेशानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / /