SURESH S. GUPTA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 4, PALGHAR

ITA 2317/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1655 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C ,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2317/MUM/2014 FOR (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ) SHRI SURESH S. GUPTA 8-C/501, ALICA NAGAR, LOKHANDWALA TOWNSHIP, KANDIVALI(E), MUMBAI-400101. PAN: AJUPG5791R VS. ITO, WARD -4, PALGHAR CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BIDCO ROAD, PALGHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS ANUPAMA SINGH (D R) DATE OF HEARING : 17.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2016 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT (ACT) IS DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) (FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)-II, THANE, DATED 20.01.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY)-20 09-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. A) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,00,0 00/- U/S.68 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASES. B) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S.69B VIS--VIS SECTION 68 APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GRANTING A NY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATION O F GROSS PROFIT BY THE LD. AO AT RS. 32,88,744/- AS AGAINST RS. 4,25,843/-, DE CLARED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT BRINGING O N RECORD ANY EVIDENCES/FACTS IN THAT REGARD. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE CASH OF RS. 2,48,270/- DEPOSITED IN BANK AS UNEXPLAINED U/S.69A. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS O F M/S MODERN PLASTIC INDUSTRIES AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF PLASTICS/PE/P P/ROPES & ALLIED PRODUCTS, FILED 2 ITA NO. 2317/M/2014 SHRI SURES H S. GUPTA RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT AY ON 30.09.2009 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,25,840/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2011. WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,48,270/- U/S 69A, UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT OF RS. 70,00,000/- U/S 68 AND FURTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM BUSINESS AT THE ESTIMATED GP RATE AT .25% WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS. 32,88,744/-. ON FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), NO RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASS ESSEE. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED PRESENT AP PEAL BEFORE US. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NO TICED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED ON 26.10.2016 WHEN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AND FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 17.11.2016. ON 17.11.2015, WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING NONE APPEARED THIS TIME TOO. H ENCE, WE HAVE NO OPTION EXCEPT TO PROCEED FURTHER AND TO HEAR THE SUBMISSION OF LD . DR FOR REVENUE. AGAINST GROUND NO.1, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THA T THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT AO, NOTICED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, RS. 70,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF PERSON, SOURCE ETC. RESULTANTLY, AO TREATED SUCH AMOUNT AS EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. REGARDING THE GROUND NO.2, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD DR THAT T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS P&L A/C WAS RECORDING MERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THE ASSESSEE W AS EXECUTING SALE OF RS. 131.55 CRORE. SUCH BUSINESS REQUIRED VARIOUS EXPENS ES LIKE MAINTENANCE OF BUSINESS PREMISES, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE, LOADING AND UNLOA DING OF GOODS AND OTHER ALLIED EXPENSES. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EXPENSES ARE CLAIMED, TH US THE NET PROFIT WAS CORRECTLY CALCULATED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). REGARDING GROUND NO.3, LD DR FOR REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,48,270/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE SAM E WAS ADDED U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE BEFORE THE FAA, HENCE, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF T HE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. EVEN BEFORE US, THE AS SESSEE HAS NEITHER APPEARED NOR FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOR CAME FORWARD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM RAISED IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US. TRIBUNAL PO STED THIS CASE FOR MERELY FIVE 3 ITA NO. 2317/M/2014 SHRI SURES H S. GUPTA TIMES AND ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR EXCEPT SEEKING AD JOURNMENT FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO APPOI NTED A COUNSEL AS EVIDENT FROM HIS LETTER DATED 24.10.2016. WE HAVE FURTHER PERUSED T HE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR ATTENDANCE B EFORE US, WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 30/11/2016 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/