DINESHL. AGARWAL (HUF), MUMBAI V. \u005cu00ccTO WD 24(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 2315/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9442 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2315/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI DINESH L. AGRAWAL (HUF), 210, BAJSONS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHAKALA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 069 PAN: AACHD 0534N VS. ITO WARD 24(1)(5), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MISS N. HEMALATHA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.10.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF TOTAL GROSS RECEIPT ALONG WI TH PARTY-WISE BREAK UP AND OTHER RELATED DETAILS. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE BREAK UP OF RECEIPT. HENCE, ENTIRE SUM OF RS.24,99 ,170/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF 16 PAR TIES, 14 HAD STATED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED CASH AGGREGATING TO RS.18,9 8,908/- FROM THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF MAKING THE PAYMENT TO THE ASSES SEE, THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.2315/M/2017 SHRI DINESH L. AGRAWAL (HUF) 2 ADDITION OF RS.21,68,295/- WAS CONFIRMED. AGAIN OU T OF 16 PARTIES, 10 PARTIES HAVE MADE DECLARATION BUT ASSESSING OFFI CER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE D ECLARATION. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 4. BEFORE ME, THE LD. A.R. DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT. LD. A.R. HAS TAKEN THE DATE FROM THE TRIBUNAL AND MATTER WAS ADJ OURNED. BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO ENDORSE THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARAGR APH NO.5.3.3 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 5.3.3. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS PLACE D ABOVE, I FIND THAT ALL OF THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT PROVE D TO BE GENUINE BY THE APPELLANT, IN SPITE OF GETTING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIE S BEFORE THE AO AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE TRANSACTIONS LISTED IN THE COLUMN NUMBER 4 IN THE TABLE OF PARA 5.2.1 FOR RS.5,33,194/- ALONG WITH THE TRANSACTION MADE WITH SHRI SACHIN A. ADANGLE FOR RS.1,92,580/- TOTAL ING TO RS.7,25,774/- CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED TO BE GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,33,194/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.23,06 ,590/- IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED AND THE APPELLANT GETS THE BENEFIT OF THIS MUCH AMOUNT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,33,194/- F ROM THE ADDITION. THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.17,73,396/- IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.10.2017. SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMB ER ITA NO.2315/M/2017 SHRI DINESH L. AGRAWAL (HUF) 3 MUMBAI, DATED: 06.10.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.