Sambhaji Laxman Pawar, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 196/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2646 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 131; 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , A M . / ITA NO. 196 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 1 0 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR, AURANGABAD HOLIDAY RESORT, LANE NO.4, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE 4 11 00 1 . / APPELLANT PAN: A A MPP4373R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TRO) , RANGE 3 , NANDED . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH / DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 0 2 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04 . 0 3 . 201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) , AURANGABAD , DATED 2 4 . 1 2 .20 1 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 44 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT T HE ACT) . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND THEIR BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,88,198/ - TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,88,198/ - . ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 2 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AU RANGABAD HAS GROSSLY ERRED BY RETAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,02,00,000/ - (RS.50,50,000+21,50,000+30,00,000) OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,50,54,271/ - MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT GIVING RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT INSPITE OF GIVING ALL THE EVIDENCES REGARDING ILLNESS OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,02,00,000/ - . 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY RETAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.41,31,000/ - OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,45,98,286/ - MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GIVING SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT IRRESPECTIVE OF SUBMISSION OF ALL EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF ILLNESS OF THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THIS FACT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 41,31,000/ - 4. SUCH O THER ORDERS BE PASSED AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND PROPER. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER VARY AND / OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 . THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FROM DATE TO DATE AND ON THE FIRST APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 13.01.2015, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, BUT THEREAFTER , NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15.04.2015, 27.07.2015, 10.11.2015 AND BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15.04.2015, 27.07.2015, 10.11.2015 AND 16.02.2016. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO E VEN FILE AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON ANY DATES OF ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 4 . THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ASSESSAB ILITY OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND / OR INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 5 . BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD DECLARED GROSS RENTAL INCOME OF RS.14,74,752/ - FROM THE GODOWN AT AURANGABAD AND SHOPS AT SH EGAON AND TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND DEBITED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,30,623/ - AND HAD DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.6,44,129/ - . SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN EARLIER YEAR AND ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 3 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND HAD WORKED OUT THE ADDITION AT RS.3,88,198/ - . 6 . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HIS MAIN OCCUPATION WAS BUILDER AND LAND DEVELOPER AND HE WAS ALSO A WORKING PARTNER IN VARIOUS FIRMS WHOSE MAIN BUSINESS WAS BUILDER AND LAND DEVELOPER . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE SHOPPING CO MPLEX AT SH EGAON, DIST. AKOLA, AND SOLD FEW SHOPS OF THE SAID COMPLEX AND OFFERED THE INCOME AS HIS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY SOLD . HE FURTHER PURCHASED GODOWN CUM OFFICE AND LET OUT THE SAID PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CONCERN, UNDER WHICH HE RECEIVED THE RE NT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES SEPARATELY. THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES INCLUDED CLEANING OF PREMISES, SALARY TO WATCHMAN AND OTHER EXPENSES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE ROOM MAINT E NANCE CHARGES (NET OF EXPENSES) AS HIS BUSINESS INCOME AND ALSO THE RENT RECEIVED FROM THE STOCK OF SHOPS LET OUT BY HIM WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. ANOTHER CONTENTION OF SHOPS LET OUT BY HIM WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003 - 04 , THE SAID INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IN TURN, STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW DECIDED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS A ND ALSO BY THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,88,198/ - . 7 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8 . ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY IT FROM GODOWN AND SHOPS AS HIS BUSINESS INCOME AND AFTER DEBITING CERTAIN EXPENSES FROM RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 14,74,752/ - , THE NET PROFIT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6,44,129/ - . THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN VIEW ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 4 OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS RENTAL INCOME AND THEREAFTER, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING SET OFF OF THE INCOME ALREADY SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE BALANCE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS MADE AT RS. 3,88,198/ - . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT HE WAS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER AND WAS ALSO A WORKING PARTNER IN VARIOUS FIRMS WHERE SIMILAR BUSINESS WAS BEING CARRIED ON. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 , IT HAD CONSTRUCTED SHOPPING COMPLEX AT SHEGAON, DISTRICT AKOLA AND SOLD FEW FLATS OF THE SAID COMPLEX AND HAD OFFERED BUSINESS INCOME THEREOF. HOWEVER, B ALANCE SHOPS COULD NOT BE SOLD AND THE SAME WERE LET OUT. FURTHER, HE HAD PURCHASED GODOWN CUM OFFICE FROM HIS COMPANY AND HAD LET OUT THE SAID PROPERTY TO TATA TELE SERVICES, AURANGABAD, UNDER WHICH HE WAS RECEIVING RENT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES SEPARATEL Y. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE SAID RENTAL INCOME WAS HIS BUSINESS INCOME, AGAINST WHICH HE WAS TO BE ALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE , DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE , NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE CONSTRUED TO DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPARTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE AFORESAID ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS SIMILAR ADD ITION WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2012. B UT THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAILED TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE WHETHER ANY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 VIS - - VIS ASSESSABILITY OF RENTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON AS DECIDED IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PRINCIPLE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE INCOME UNDER THE SAME HEAD AS ASSESSE D IN ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISPOSED OF AS INDICATED ABOVE. 9 . THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.1,02,00,000/ - UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF THE ASSESSEE HA VING FILED VARIOUS DETAILS REGARDING HIS ILLNESS. 10 . BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE , THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING GIVEN HAD FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATES OF HEARING AND EVEN ONCE WHEN HE APPEARED, HE PROMISED TO FURNISH INFORMATION, BUT HE FAILED TO APPEAR AND THE ASSESSMENT HAD TO BE COMPLETED EXPRTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. ON 19.12.2011, THE CA OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. ON 19.12.2011, THE CA OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE STATED THAT TILL TODAY NO CASH BOOK WAS MAINTAINED AND NO LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS PREPA RED AND ALSO NO BALANCE SHEET WAS PREPARED. AS PER OFFICE NOTE, HE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DOCUMENT S . HE REQUESTED 8 DAYS TIME TO PRODUCE THE SAME, BUT THE SAME WERE NOT ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED. THE LEAR NED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ATTEND ON 19.12.2011 TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE ASKED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN RELIED ON BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL UNSECURED LOANS AT RS.3,29,22,938/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LENDERS WERE NOT PROVED AND HENCE, 25% OF T HE SAME I.E. RS.82,30,734/ - WAS CONSIDERED AS NON - GENUINE AND WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 6 THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE TAKEN DEPOSIT OF RS. 12,80,000/ - AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION, 25% OF THE SAME I.E. RS.3,20,000/ - WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO SUBMIT THE BANK STATEMENT OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK , NEW PAN VEL BRANCH, MUMBAI. AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 40,35,000/ - I N CASH IN THE ABOVE SAID BANK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SINCE THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE SAME WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. THE BANK STATEMENT OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, PANVEL BRANCH, MUMBAI WAS ALSO CALLED FOR, IN WHICH THERE WAS CREDIT OF RS.2,60,73,543/ - IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 . AS RS.40,35,000/ - WAS ALREADY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E OUT OF TOTAL CREDIT AMOUNT AND SINCE THE SOURCE OF REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 2,20,38,543/ - WAS NOT EXPLAINED, 50% OF THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,19,271/ - . THE TOTAL ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,50,54,271/ - . FURTHER, THE STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK, AURANGABAD FOR THE PERIOD FROM 09.07.2008 TO 10.11.2008 WAS CALLED FOR, IN WHICH THERE WAS CREDIT OF RS. 2,19,341/ - FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2009 AND SINCE THE SOURCE OF THE SAME WAS NOT EXPLAINED, 50% OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT AT RS. 1,09,670/ - WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED RS.40,49,472/ - (APPROX.) TO THE ICICI BANK, NANDED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION VIS - - VIS ITS SOURCE, 50% O F THE SAID AMOUNT I.E. RS.20,24,736/ - WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THERE WERE DEPOSITS OF RS. 43,54,130/ - (APPROX.) IN THE LATUR URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SOURCE OF THE SAME, 50% OF THE SAME WAS ADDED AT RS. 21,77,06 5/ - UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT CONSIDERED ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 7 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNION BANK OF INDIA, NANDED , IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED SUM OF RS. 2,91,96,572/ - . AS THE SOURCE OF SAME WAS NOT EXPLAINED, 50% OF THE AMOUNT I.E. RS. 1,4 5,98,286/ - WAS ADDED. ANOTHER ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WAS IN RESPECT OF FLAT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND SINCE SOURCE OF STAMP DUTY PAID AT RS.1,95,150/ - AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES AT RS.30,210/ - WERE NOT EXPLAINED, HENCE A DDITION OF RS. 2,25,360/ - WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 1 1 . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN INFORMATION AND WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE AT RS. 82,30,734/ - I.E. 25% OF UNSECURED LOANS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008 , THE CIT(A) HELD THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON THIS COUNT AS THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008 . FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAID UNSECURED LOANS AS GENUINE IN HIS REMAND REPORT, HENCE, THE SAID ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS CANCELLED. SAID ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS CANCELLED. 1 2 . NOW, COMING TO THE NEXT ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,54,271/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 100% FOR CASH DEPOSITS AND 50% OF OTHER CREDITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN OV ERSEAS BANK, NEW PANVEL BRANCH, BEING UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 1 3 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATION AND POINTED OUT THAT WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 40,35,000/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN C REDIT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR INCOME AND SAVINGS FROM EARLIER YEARS INCOME. HE FURTHER CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED ADVANCE AGAINST THE LAND AND OUT OF HIS CURRENT YEAR INCOME OF RS.8 LAKHS, CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND ALSO CASH WITHDRAWALS FRO M OTHER BANK DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 8 OF 50% ON OTHER CREDITS APPEARING IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SA ME WERE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE OF PROFITS FROM VARIOUS FIRMS, INTER - BANK TRANSFERS, TRANSFE RS FROM ONE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT TO ANOTHER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT , THE LOANS FROM COMPANIES, PROCEEDS OF DD CANCELLATION, ETC. FURTHER, SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE VIS - - VIS SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT TOTALING RS.5 0 ,50,000/ - . THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SAME TO ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IN TURN, FILED ITS REMAND REPORT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 9.3 AT PAGES 15 AND 16 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS AGAINST THE CREDIT OF RS. 2,20,38,543/ - IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, 50% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AFTER VERIFICATION OF DETAILS OF CREDITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT DEPOSITS TOTALING RS. 5 0 ,50,000/ - IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, W ERE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, FURNISHED COUNTER COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF T WO DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT NOTED THAT WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.40,35,000/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RE MAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CASH BOOK, BANK PASS BOOK AND VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, SAID CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.40,35,000/ - WAS FOUND TO BE EXPLAINED AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ADDITION OF RS.40,35,000/ - WAS DELETED. FURTHER, IN RESPEC T OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.50,50,000/ - , THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TWO TRANSACTIONS, SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO SHRI MANEJI R. KOKATE AND SHRI GANGADHAR R. KOKAT E. FURTHER, ENQUIRIES WERE MADE THROU GH INSPECTOR AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID PERSONS WERE SMALL AGRICULTURISTS AND DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PAY HUGE AMOUNTS OF RS. 13 LAKHS AND RS.37,50,000/ - . SINCE THE CAPACITY OF THE PERSONS WAS NOT EXPLAINED, CASH CREDIT OF RS.50,50,000/ - WAS DIREC TED TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 9 1 4 . IN RESPECT OF RS.21,50,000/ - , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF SHARES OF SHETKARI BALIRAJA SUGARS LTD. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY PROOF IN THIS REGARD IN THE FORM OF TRANSFER DEED OR AGREEMENT WITH THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND HENCE, THE RECEIPT WAS GENUINE. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION OF RS.21,50,000/ - WAS CONFIRMED. 1 5 . WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF RS.30 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM ARYA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI AND HAD FILED CONFIRMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND RE PORT, POINTED OUT THAT THE CONFIRMATION WAS A XEROX COPY OF CONFIRMATION ON SIMPLE LETTER PAD AND HENCE, THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER WAS NOT PROVED BY FILING CORROBORATIVE E VIDENCE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS CORROBORATIVE E VIDENCE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND HENCE, WAS GENUINE, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF ENTRY OF RS.30 LAKHS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,02,00,000/ - (RS.50,50,000/ - + 21,50,000/ - + RS.30,00,000/ - ) WAS CONFIRMED OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,50,54,271/ - 1 6 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . D ESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE , HE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION, EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ADDITIONS. 1 7 . THE FIRST ADDIT ION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WAS TOTALING RS.50,50,000/ - , WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED WAS AN ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM TWO PERSONS TO ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 10 WHOM SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON ENQUIRIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND THAT THE SAID PERSONS WERE SMALL AGRICULTURISTS AND DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PAY HUGE AMOUNTS OF RS.13 LAKHS AND RS. 37,50,000/ - . THE SAID PERSONS ALSO COULD NOT PROVE THEIR CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE SAID AMOUNT AND HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE . IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVING PROVED THE CAPACITY OF THE SAID PERSONS, THE AMOUNT IS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.50,50,000/ - . 1 8 . SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO ADDITIONS OF RS. 21,50,000/ - AND RS. 30 LAKHS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF TWO DIFFERENT TRANSA CTIONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO TWO TRANSACTIONS I.E. FIRST TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES OF SHETKARI BALIRAJA SUGARS LTD. , ONLY CLAIMED THAT TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES OF SHETKARI BALIRAJA SUGARS LTD. , ONLY CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. IN RESPECT O F SECOND RECEIPT OF RS.30 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT I T WAS A LOAN RECEIVED F ROM ONE ARYA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI . HOWEVER, THE CAPACITY OF TWO PERSONS COULD NOT BE PROVED AND EVEN THE CONFIRMATION WAS FILED BY WAY OF SIMPLE XEROX LETTER PAD. MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANK ING CHANNEL DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE O F ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW THEREOF, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 . 02 CRORES (RS.50,50,000/ - + 21,50,000/ - + RS.30,00,000/ - ) . 1 9 . THE NEXT ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WAS UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AT RS.1,45,98,286/ - , AGAINST WHICH THE CIT(A) HA D RETAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.41,31,000/ - . 20 . AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED 50% OF CREDIT OF DEPOSIT OF RS.1,45,98,286/ - IN UNION BANK OF INDIA , ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 11 NANDED, BEING UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2. 91 CRORES, BUT DUE TO SHORT PERIOD FOR COMPLIANCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE EACH AND EVERY CREDIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCO UNT. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT S WERE ON ACCOUNT OF INTER - BANK TRANSFER S AND ADVANCES RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF GROUP CONCERNS, RECEIPTS FROM FIRMS IN WHICH, HE WAS PARTNER, ETC. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE CIT(A) , WHO IN TURN, HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 13.3 AT PAGES 27 AND 28 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. ON VERIFICATION OF EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CREDITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.41,31,000/ - W ERE FOUND TO BE NOT VERIFIABLE . AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXT E NT OF RS. 41,31,000/ - AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING PROOFS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ENTRIES. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). 21. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, BUT HAS FAILED TO APPEAL AND FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM. THE ADDITION S WHICH W ERE REFERRED TO BY THE CIT(A) BEING NOT VERIFIABLE W ERE THE DEPOSIT S OF RS.10,12,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 20.02.2009 , RS.14,95,000/ - ON 13.03.2009 , RS.14,69,000/ - ON 20.03.2009 AND RS.1,55,000/ - ON 25.03.2009 . THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED THAT SAME WERE CREDITED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF SHARES OF SHETKARI BALIRAJA SUGARS LTD. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THE SIMILAR DEPOSITS IN OTHER BANKS IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER O F SHARES AND APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITIONS OF RS.10,12,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 20.02.2009, RS.14,95,000/ - ON 13.03.2009, RS.14,69,000/ - ON 20.03.2009 AND RS.1,55,000/ - ON 25.03.2009 . IN THE ITA NO. 196 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI SAMBHAJI LAXMAN PAWAR 12 ABSENCE OF DETAILS, WE CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS. 4 1,31,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE . 22. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT THAT WHETHER ANY APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST PARTIAL ALLOWANCES MADE BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DECIDE THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL ONLY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 23 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 4 TH MARCH , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPE LLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A), AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE CIT , AURANGABAD ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE