Mudigere Boregowda Ramesh, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1035/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95177 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SRIHARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SINGLE MEMBER BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE - PRESIDENT ITA NO. 1035 / BANG/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 9 - 1 0 ) SHRI MUDIGERE BOREGOWDA RAMESH, NO.337, 2 ND MAIN, 3 RD PHASE, BSK 3 RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. APPELLANT PAN: ACGPR5298B VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 (4), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.K.SRIHARI, ADDL.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 24/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 /08/2015 O R D E R PER D.MANMOHA N , VP: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - I I, BANGALORE AND IT PER TAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. THOUGH NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 , FROM TIM E TO TIME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I PROPOSE TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE , QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. FACTS NECESSARY FOR DISPOS AL OF THE APPEAL ARE STATED IN BRIEF . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF TYRES , TUBES AND CAR ACCESSORIES IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S.RAKSHITH TYRES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE DECLARED A ITA NO . 1035 /BANG/20 1 4 SHRI MUDIGERE BOREGOWDA RAMESH PAGE 2 OF 4 TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,90,010/ - , BEING INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BASED ON AIR IN FORMATION. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED , SHRI M.B.RAMESH, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF , ATTENDED THE HEARING AND FURNISHING THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. UPON PROPERLY VERIFYING THE DOCUMENTS, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED REQUIRED DET AILS WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN ITEMS AND THEREFORE CERTAIN ADDITION S ARE CALLED FOR. HE, ACCORDINGLY, COMPUTED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,02,684/ - . THE MAJOR ADDITION IN THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,97, 030/ - IN RESPECT OF HDFC BANK LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DRAWN ANY MONEY FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT TOW ARDS CREDIT CARD . A S THE SOURCE FOR CREDIT CARD PAYMENT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE SUM OF RS.2,97,030/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE OTHER MINOR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BASED ON THE AIR INFORMATION. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER: 2. SEVERAL NOTICES OF HEARING DATED 10.06.2013, 18.02,2014 AND 17.03.2014 WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE APPELLANT. THE DATES OF HEARING P ROVIDED ARE 3.8.2013, 26.2.2014 AND 2.4.2014, NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TOOK PAINS TO APPEAR IN PERSON, EVEN AFTER GIVING THE FINAL CHANCE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY OF THE NOTICES AND THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 17.3.2 014 HAS ALSO COME BACK UNSERVED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEGAL POSITION, THE GROUNDS ITA NO . 1035 /BANG/20 1 4 SHRI MUDIGERE BOREGOWDA RAMESH PAGE 3 OF 4 OF APPEAL MADE HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DISPOSING OF THIS APPEAL. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SOURCE , IN SUPPORT OF CREDIT CAR D PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECLARED CONTRACT RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,736/ - AND THEREFORE, INCOME WAS ESTIMATED ON SUCH CONTRACT RECEIPTS. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE ON MERITS AND THEREFORE ASSUMED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. EVEN AT THIS STAGE, NO MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED T O PROVE THE SOURCE FOR PAYMENT TO THE BANK. EVEN WITH REGARD TO OTHER ADDITIONS, NO MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT REASONS TO MAKE IMPUGNED ADDITION AND HENCE IT IS FOR THE A SSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHEREAS , EVEN AT THIS STAGE, NO INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED. HE, THUS, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO/CIT(A). 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF TH E OPINION THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)/AO AND THE ADDITION MADE THEREON ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO . 1035 /BANG/20 1 4 SHRI MUDIGERE BOREGOWDA RAMESH PAGE 4 OF 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUGUST , 201 5 . SD/ - ( D.MANMOHAN ) VICE PRESIDENT EKSRINIVASULU COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE