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

ITA 1109/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2286 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANU K AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Onus to prove
• Section: 69C; 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1109 /MUM/ 201 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ) MR.YASINALI MOHAMEDHUSAIN MUKHI, 501/B - WING, SHAM S P A LACE, 98, HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400050 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15 ( 3 )( 2 ), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROD, MUMBAI - 400007 ./ PAN : AA BPM7973M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SMT.ANU K AGGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 3 .12. 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 .12. 2015 O R D E R 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 EVE N 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. ITA NO.1109 / MUM/ 201 2 2 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED AIR INFOR MATION 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 AGG REGATING 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. I N 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 CI T(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 . SD SD ( / SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( . . / B.R.BASKARAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED .. 3RD DEC,2015 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO.1109 / MUM/ 201 2 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI