Duke Advisors (P) Ltd., Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 2173/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2679 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K BIJU
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KU MAR KEDIA , AM . / ITA NO. 2173 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 DUKE ADVISORS (P.) LTD., SURYA PLAZA, 214, NAVI PETH, L.B.S. ROAD, PUNE 4 11030 . / APPELLANT PAN: A ACCD0652N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1( 4 ), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. BIJU / DATE OF HEARING : 02 . 0 2 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 . 0 2 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , PUNE , DATED 31 . 0 7 .20 1 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 09 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . TH E ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 2173 /PN/20 1 4 DUKE ADVISORS (P.) LTD. 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.3,30,000/ - U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, DISREGARDING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLAN T. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DIRECTORS PETTY CASH ACCOUNT IS VERY MUCH PART OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY VALID REASON. 3. THE APP ELLANT MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO ADD TO OR ALTER ANY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT , HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT A PPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE . 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.3,30,000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF VENTURE CAPITALIST AND PRIVATE EQUITY PARTNERS AND INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF ( - ) RS. 17,09,785/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS AND P ERUSED THE BANK STATEMENT OF YES BANK , IN WHICH THERE WERE CA SH DEPOSITS TOTALING RS.14,00,000/ - . THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS REGARDING ENTRIES OF WITHDRAWALS FROM CITI BANK AND DIRECTOR S PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT RS.4, 00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE ON 01.11.2007 AND IN RESPECT OF BALANCE DEPOSIT OF RS.10,00,000/ - ON 19.10.2007 , IT WAS ITA NO. 2173 /PN/20 1 4 DUKE ADVISORS (P.) LTD. 3 VERIFIED THAT RS.4,00,000/ - WAS OUT OF CASH IN HAND. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF REMAINING RS.6,00,000/ - , STATED TO BE RE CEIVED FROM DIRECTORS PETTY CASH ACCOUNT , SAME WAS FOUND TO BE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, HENCE, SUM OF RS.6,00,000/ - WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN EXPLANATION THAT SUM OF RS.6,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 19.10.2007 WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF BALANCE AVAILABLE IN DIRECTORS PETTY CASH ACCOUNT. AS PER LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DIRECTOR S PETTY CASH FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 3,30,000/ - AS ON 01.04.2007 AND CASH OF RS.2,70,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED ON 18.10.2007 TO THIS ACCOUNT. BUT ON PERUSAL OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO SUCH ENTRY FOR OPENING BALANCE OF RS.3,30,000/ - WAS FOUND NOR DID THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN UNDER WHICH HEAD THE OPENING BALANCE WAS SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE LAST YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,70,000/ - AND THE BALANCE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,30,000/ - WAS SUSTAINED. 6. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,30,000/ - . DESPITE THE APPEAL BEING ADJOURNED FROM DATE TO DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE DIRECT ORS PETTY CASH ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE BEING FURNISHED AS TO WHERE THE SAID BALANCE OF RS.3,30,000/ - WAS DECLARED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANY EVIDENCE BE ING FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ITA NO. 2173 /PN/20 1 4 DUKE ADVISORS (P.) LTD. 4 GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORD ER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF FEBRU ARY , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATE D : 24 TH FEBR UARY , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I, PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I, PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - I, PUNE ; 5. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PU NE