DHARMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI GOHIL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)1, SURAT

ITA 1187/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 April 2022AY 2011-124 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 order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide any documentary evidence. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the lower appellate authority's decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order upholding various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT despite multiple notices and adjournments, and did not provide any documentary evidence to substantiate their grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure, cash deposits, unsecured loans, bank debits, and advances are justified in the absence of substantiating evidence from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Appellant represented by None Respondent represented by Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr.DR Date of hearing 12/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 12/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 23/02/2016 for the Assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT-Appeals has erred in making addition of Rs. 43,50,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure.

2. The learned CIT-Appeals has also erred in disallowing Rs. 1,60,434/- being 25% of total expenditure of Rs. 6,41,735/- towards unexplained expenditure.

Dharmeshbhai Mohanbhai Gohil

3. The learned CIT-Appeals has erred in making addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank.

The learned CIT-Appeals has erred in making addition of Rs. 41,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans.

The learned CIT-Appeals has erred in making addition of Rs. 36,25,588/- on account of unexplained debits in Bank Statement.

The learned CIT-Appeals has erred in making addition of Rs. 29,53,553/- on account of unexplained Advances.”

This appeal came up for hearing on 12/04/2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Perusal of record shows that notice of hearing is served on the assessee on a number of times and adjournment was sought on behalf of assessee. The authority letter of D.V. Shah & Associates was filed, is on record. Ultimately, an application was filed for withdrawal of their authority. On filing of such application for withdrawal of authority, a fresh notice for appearance of the assessee was sent through registered post AD. Despite service of notice through RPAD, no body appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, we left with no option except to decide the appeal of the assessee on the basis of submission of the learned senor departmental representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the Revenue and the material available on record.

The ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).

Dharmeshbhai Mohanbhai Gohil

4. We have considered the submissions of ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. We observed from perusal of the record that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 26/03/2014 by making various additions i.e. (i) addition of Rs. 43.50 lacs on account of unexplained expenditure, (ii) disallowance of Rs. 1,60,434/- being 25% of total expenditure of Rs. 6,41,735/- towards unexplained expenditure, (iii) addition of Rs. 8.00 lacs on account of unexplained cash deposits in Bank, (iv) addition of Rs. 41.00 lacs on account of unexplained unsecured loans, (v) addition of Rs. 36,25,588/- on account of unexplained debits in bank statement and (vi) addition of Rs. 29,53,553/- on account of unexplained advances by taking the view that in absence of details like bank book with narration, nature of transactions, name and address of the parties, ledger account, mode of payment, source of payments with requisite documentary support, the genuineness of the said expenditure made could not be verifiable. Therefore, the above discussed expenditure/disallowance were treated as unexplained expenditure and the same are added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition in ex parte order by taking a view that the assessee has not substantiated the various grounds with documentary evidences. Before us neither the assessee appeared nor filed any documentary evidences, despite the fact Considering the fact that the appeal was filed in the year 2016 and despite passing of more than six years, the assessee has not filed even a single documentary evidence to substantiate various grounds Dharmeshbhai Mohanbhai Gohil of appeal. Therefore, we do not find any reason to deviate from the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →