Shri Rajesh Manilal. Makwana,HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1534/AHD/2019

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Rajesh Manilal Makwana against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2007-08, which added Rs. 8,00,000 as unexplained investment in shares of M/s Adarsh Engitech Private Limited. The assessee argued that the investment was made by the company and should be taxed in its hands, not his. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rejected this claim, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the lower authorities and noting the assessee's failure to appear or provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127173 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRIWASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1535/AHD/2019 नधा रणवष /Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Rajesh Manilal Makwana C-80/956, Shreenath Apartment, Nr. Vyas Wadi, Nava Wadej, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AJPPM9595G Vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1534/AHD/2019 नधा रणवष /Asstt. Year: 2007-08 Rajesh Manilal Makwana-HUF C-80/956, Shreenath Apartment, Nr. Vyas Wadi, Nava Wadej, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AAKHR1360Q Vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjaykumar, Sr. D.R स ु नवाईक तार ख/Date of Hearing : 12/01/2023 घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 18/01/2023 आदेश/O R D E R The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad dated 30/07/2019 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The following grounds of appeal are raised by the assessee: ITA Nos.1534&1535/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 2 “1. The Ld. AO has erred in law by making an addition u/s 69 of Rs. 8.00 lacs in the hands of the assessee without identifying the facts of the case and real nature of transactions involved without appreciating the fact that the assessee is only an accommodation entry provider. The Ld. CIT A has erred in law by confirming the same. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law by initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the above addition without proving intention to conceal income. 3. Any other ground of appeal shall be submitted at the time of hearing.” 3. In the present case, the assessee is an individual and engaged as commission agent. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not explain the source of the investment made in the shares of M/s Adarsh Engitech Private Limited worth of Rs. 8,00,000/- only. Thus, the AO treated the same as unexplained investment of Rs. 8,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Actand added to the total income of the assessee. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee submitted that the amount of investmentin shares of the company was given to him by the company itself i.e. M/s Adarsh Engitech Private Limited Only. So it should be taxed in the hands of M/s Adarsh Engitech Private Ltd only. 6. However, the Ld.CIT(A) found the submission of the assessee is not plausible and upheld the decision of AO. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before me. 8. At the outset, I may like to mention that neither the concerned Counsel nor any other person on behalf of the assessee appeared before the Tribunal to represent the case or even seek an adjournment at the time of hearing despite the fact that it is the 2 nd round of litigation before the Tribunal. As the case has already been listed eight timesfor hearing but none of the time, anybody appeared except on one occasionwhere the adjournment was sought. Rule–24 of the Income Tax (Appellate) Tribunal Rules, 1963, empowers the Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by the appellant ex–parte if the appellant does not appear in ITA Nos.1534&1535/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 3 person or through an authorized representative when the appeal is called for hearing. Therefore, in the given circumstances and considering the nature of dispute, I decided to proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee with the assistance of the learned Departmental Representative. 9. The Ld. DR before me vehemently relied upon the order of the authorities below. 10. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the materials available on records. It was observed that the order of the authorities below has incorporated lots of evidences to substantiate their decision against the assessee. Now, the onus to proof the findings of the authorities below as not justified lies upon the assessee. However, the assessee has not brought anything contrary to the findings of the authorities below. As such, it seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his claims as he failed to appear despite giving so many opportunities by the Tribunal. 11. On perusal of the order of the learned CIT-A, I find the direction given by the ITAT vide order dated 11 th January 2017 wherein it was observed that the addition should be retained in the hands of the assessee provided the substantive addition is made in the hands of the company i.e. M/s Adarsh Engitech Private Limited. The learned CIT-A has also observed in his order that the substantive addition in the hands of the company namely M/s Adarsh Engitech Private Limited has been deleted. Thus, the learned CIT-A was pleased to confirm the addition in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above, we hold the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is based on reasons and a speaking one. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A).Hence,the ground of appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA Nos.1534&1535/AHD/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 4 Coming to ITA No. 1534/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 13. The identical issue involved in the case has already been dealt with by me in ITA No. 1535/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2007-08 and in the absence of any changed circumstances, the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed. 14. In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the assessee aredismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 18/01/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 18/01/2023 Tanmay, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेशक त ल प!े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशान ु सार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपील यअ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation :17/01/2023(Dictatedin his own laptop) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 17/01/2023 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - 18/01/2023 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement .................... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.. : 18 /01/2023 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... Date of Despatch of the Order.................. 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धतआयकरआय ु त/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. !वभागीय $त$न ध, आयकरअपील यअ धकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड&फाईल / Guard file.