CHETAN DOSHI, MUMBAI V. ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 45, MUMBAI

ITA 1615/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4299 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYASAGAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN , AM AND AMARJIT SINGH , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1615 / MUM/ 20 11 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 20 0 7 - 08 ) MR.CHETAN DO SHI, B/5, UMESH KIRAN, SHAHID BHAGAT ROAD, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI - 400056. / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 45, ROOM NO.656, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AEDPD1404J / APPELLANT BY NONE / RESPONDENT BY SHRI DAYA SAGAR / DATE OF HEARING : 30.12 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNC EMENT: 1. 1.2016 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN, AM : THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2010 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 36, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH, UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BOOKS AND UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF THEM TO THE SATISFACTION OF ITA NO. 1615 / MUM/ 201 1 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE TH E ABOVE SAID ADDITIONS WERE MADE. BEFORE LD CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND HENCE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO COMPEL US TO INTERFERE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE LD CIT(A). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 1ST JAN,2016 . 1ST JAN, 2016 SD SD ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 1ST JAN , 2015 . . . ./ 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