VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA, MUMBAI V. ITO 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1930/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3286 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKUNDRAJ M CHATE
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAI N, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1930/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA 58/69 GROUND FLOOR, PRABHUDHA NAGAR, R. A.K. ROAD, WADALA, MUMBAI-400 031. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(2)(3), MUMBAI. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AFRPG 6442C ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUKUNDRAJ M. CHATE / DATE OF HEARING : 02/03/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/03/2016 $% / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J. M.: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 16, DATED 11. 02.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 ITA NO. 1930/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA VS. ITO 1. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER ERRED IN INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND ADDING A SUM OF RS.14,9 2,480/- TO THE INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT ALTHOUGH EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BY YOUR APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN DIS MISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY YOUR AP PELLANT. 3. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE UNWARRANTED INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A BE SET ASIDE AND INSTEAD PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF BE APPLIED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,08,060/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 05.01.2009. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTIC ES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATIO N IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13,07,900/- AND CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS.1,84,580/- THEREFORE THE AO HELD THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13,07,900/- AND CHEQUE DEPOSIT O F RS.1,84,580/- AS UN EXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 AND ADDED BACK T HE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITA NO. 1930/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA VS. ITO 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE DISMISSED THE APPEAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11.02.2013. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FI LED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT EVEN IN S PITE OF SEVERAL NOTICES, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND ON THE PERUSAL O F ORDER SHEET WE HAVE NOTICED THAT NOBODY WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DATES. ALTHOUGH THE NOTICES WERE ALSO SERVED UPON THE ASSE SSEE FOR APPEARING BEFORE US, BUT EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO APP EAR AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED TODAY. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR IS PRESENT IN THE COURT AND IS READY WITH ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE WE HAVE DECI DED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX-PARTE. GROUND NO. 1,2 &3 5. SINCE ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND INTER- RELATED THEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAME THROUGH THE PRESENT COMMON ORDER. 4 ITA NO. 1930/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA VS. ITO 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE F OUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DULY CONSIDERED ALL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E AND THE OPERATIVE PARA OF CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE AFORE MENTIONED ISSUE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THE AOS ORDER, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT H AVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLA NATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS BEFORE THE AO INSPITE OF OPP ORTUNITIES BEING PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE AO. IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT A SUM OF RS.1,40,000/- HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FR OM HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT, SOME CASH DEPOSITS ARE BY HIS PRINCIPALS, SOME ARE CHEQUES DEPOSITS AFTER RECEIPT FROM HIS PRINCIPALS. THE MOD US OPERANDI EXPLAINED IS THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVES CASH FROM HIS PRINCIPAL, THE APPELLANT ISSUES CHEQUES FOR PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM THE PRINCIPALS MAKE PURCHASE, THAT THE APPELLANT EARNS COMMISSION FORM SUCH WORK. THE SUBMISSIONS ARE MERE AVERMENTS WITHO UT THERE BEING ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION. THERE IS NO CON FIRMATION FROM ANY OF THE PRINCIPALS THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT GIVEN THE CASH TO THE APPELLANT FOR SUCH WORK, OR DEPOSITED THE CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT . AS REGARDS THE TRANSFER OF SUM FROM HIS OTHER BANK ACCOUNT, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT N THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE APPELLANT AS 5 ITA NO. 1930/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA VS. ITO CLAIMED, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF THE MODE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS, O R THE CARRYING ON OF SUCH BUSINESS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION44AF ALS O CANNOT BE APPLIED AS PRAYED. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT HE DEPOSITED THE MONEY, WITHDREW AND RE-DEPOSITED THEM AGAIN, IN WHI CH CIRCUMSTANCES, TELESCOPING AND WORKING OUT OF PEAK DEPOSIT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COURSE OF ACTION TO BE FOLLOWED. RATH ER THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVES CASH FROM H IS PRINCIPAL, THE APPELLANT ISSUES CHEQUES FOR PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS FROM WHOM THE PRINCIPALS MAKE PURCHASES, THAT THE APPELLANT EARNS COMMISSION FROM SUCH WORK. SINCE NONE OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT ARE FOUND TENABLE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS FOUND CORRECT AND IS UPHELD. 7. AFTER ANALYZING THE AFORE MENTIONED ORDER WE FOU ND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ALL THE ISSUES AND HAS PASSED JUDICI OUS ORDER AND NO CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO DEVIA TE OR INTERFERE INTO THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE REJECT THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 6 ITA NO. 1930/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) VISHNUKANT MUNNALAL GUPTA VS. ITO ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2016 SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &' $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) MUMBAI; *$ DATED : 16.03.2016 PS. ASHWINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 ''12 , 12# , ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / !'# (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$ %, ( ) / ITAT, MUMBAI