Kunhabdulla, Kozhikkode V. The ITo, Kozhikkode

ITA 152/COCH/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Kunhabdulla Therkandiyil, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had confirmed the addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.7,15,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that his income, declared under Section 44AD, was from a brick's business and should be treated as such. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of a brick kiln operation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115520 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-0000
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 44AD; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA No.152/Coch/2021& SA No. 28/Coch/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Kunhabdulla Therkandiyil House Chekkiyad, Parakkadavu Kozhikode 673509 Vs. The Income Tax Officer Kozhikode PAN –BVZPK8798L Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Johnson George, CA Revenue by: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per: Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centren(NFAC) Delhi’s order dated 31.07.2021, passed in case No. CIT(A), Kozhikode/11080/2019-20, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making Section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits, Shri Johnson vehemently argued in favour of the corresponding pleadings throughout that this taxpayer had indeed filed his return under Section 44AD of the Act declaring income ITA No. 385/Coch/2020 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) 2 derived from brick’s business. Learned AR’s case therefore is that the entire sum ought to have been treated as business income only and the impugned Section 68 addition deserves to be deleted. 3. We find no merit in assessee’s stand as despite our repeated queries, there are no details of the area of land or labour payment; as the case may be so as to prove the brick kiln production business at all. This is further coupled with the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has only added peak cash to the tune of Rs.7,15,000/-. We thus uphold the lower authorities action to this effect therefore. The assessee fails in his sole substantive ground. 4. The assessee’s Stay Petition No. 28/Coch/2021 stand disposed off in very terms. 5. This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.152/Coch/2021 is dismissed and the stay application SA No.28/Coch/2021 stands rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 19 th December, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFA 4. The CIT- 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.