SURESH HENRY THOMAS, MUMBAI V. I.T.O.8(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1757/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 175719914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONOURABLE VICE PRESIDENT SHRI. D. MANMOHAN, & SHRI RAJENDRA (AM) ITA NO. 1757/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DATE OF HEARING: 26/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/03/2014 O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL, FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE , IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(APPEALS)-16, MUMBAI, AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS BEFORE US: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF ADDING A SUM OF RS.12,89,72 0/- TOWARDS THE COST OF FLAT FOR WANT OF PROOF WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE FLAT WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1998. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF DISALLOWING MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF RS.31,572/- I.E. 20% OF TOTAL MOTOR CAR EXPENSES ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USE WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS . 3. THIS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 05.02.2014 AND NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, THE BENCH HAVING NOT FUNCTIONED ON THAT DATE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 26.03.2014 AND THE NEW DATE OF POSTING IS SHRI SURESH HENRY THOMAS 718-719, B WING, RAHEJA CLASSIQUE, NEW LINK ROAD, OSHIWAR, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI 400 061 PAN:- AAAPT4832B INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(1)(2) MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: NONE DEPARTMENT BY. PITAMBER DAS ITANO.1757/M/2011 2 ANNOUNCED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY; WE THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPE AL, QUA ASSESSEE. 4. FACTS NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ARE S TATED IN BRIEF. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN ELECTRONICS GOODS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,61,311/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCH ASED FLAT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.46,12,850/-. WHEN ASKED TO FURN ISH THE DETAILS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE, ETC. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS PURC HASED FLAT NO.718 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.33,55,460/- WHEREAS ANOTHER FLA T I.E., FLAT NO.719 IS IN THE NAME OF MRS. OLIVIA THOMAS & MR. H.M.S. THOMAS AND IT WAS PURCHASED FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,89,720/-. ON CLOSE SCR UTINY THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FLAT NO.719 WAS ALSO PURCHASED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE HAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSES SEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION, THE AO ADDED A SUM OF RS.12,89, 720/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. LEARNED CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS AS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN FLAT NO.719 AS ITS OWN ASSETS IN ITS PERS ONAL BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINST IT. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. AO AS TO FROM WHERE THIS A SSET WAS ACQUIRED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. AO WAS LEFT NO OTHER OP TION TO EXCEPT TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT ALSO DELIBERATELY FAILED TO ATTEND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME AND ALSO DID NOT GIVE ANY EVI DENCES TO PROVE THAT THE INVESTMENT IS FROM KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM LEFT NO OTHER OPTION TO EXCEPT TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE LD. AO. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FAILED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DE PRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR WHICH WAS USED FOR PERSONAL AS WELL AS BUSINESS PUR POSES. THEREFORE, ESTIMATED 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE TOWARD PERSO NAL PURPOSES, WHICH WORKS ITANO.1757/M/2011 3 OUT TO RS.31,572/-. WHEN CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN JUSTIFY THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS ONLY FOR BUSI NESS PURPOSE, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE AO DI SALLOWED A SUM OF RS.31,572/-. 7. THOUGH AN APPEAL WAS FILED, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY PROOF BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THUS, THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE MOTOR VEHI CLE IS USED FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE ONLY. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE U S. NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK OR WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMI TY AND, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI; DATED : 26/3/2014 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ( ( ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI A.K.PATEL