HASEEN AHMED SAYAD, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1348/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101242 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHANDAS

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN , AM AND PAWAN SINGH , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1348 / MUM/20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 200 9 - 10 ) MR.HASEEN AHMED SAYAD , 48 - 5 , LAKDAWALA GALI, STATION ROAD, BEHRAM NAGAR, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 4000051 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(3)(2),MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : BKUPS6550A / APPELLANT BY NONE / R EVENUE BY SHRI MOHANDAS / DATE OF HEARING : 5.10. 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 5.10. 201 5 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN, AM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 6 - 11 - 2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 30, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOU GH SEVERAL NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST AND SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGED. HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ITA NO. 1348 / MUM/20 1 3 2 AXIS BANK , BUT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER PROPER EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE RATE OF NET PROFIT DECLARED DURING THE YEAR WAS ONLY 6.31% AS AGAINST THE RATE OF 19.55% DECLARED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER PROPER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DRASTIC FALL IN THE RATE OF NET PROFIT. HENCE THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME BY ADOPTING AVERAGE RATE OF NET PROFIT OF 12.93%. THE SAME WAS ALSO UPHELD BY LD CIT(A) AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH PROPER EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE DRASTIC FALL IN THE RATE OF NET PROFIT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE JUSTIFI ED IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME MADE BY THE AO, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE AVERAGE RATE OF NET PROFIT BY CONSIDERING THE RATE OF NET PROFIT DECLARED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO WAS UNREASONABLE. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2 015. 5 TH OCTOBER, 2 015 SD SD ( PAWAN SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 5 TH OCTOBER, 2 015. ITA NO. 1348 / MUM/20 1 3 3 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / 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