MAHIPAL PUROHIT, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

ITA 3008/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84280 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM ./ I.T.A. NO.3008/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI MAHIPAL PUROHIT, 403, 4 TH FLOOR, YOGI RESIDENCY, YOGI NAGAR, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI 400 092. / VS. ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 22, MUMBAI. ! ./ '# ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAFPP7613M ( $ / APPELLANT ) .. ( %& $ / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.D.SRIVASTAVA ' ()! / DATE OF HEARING : 24/11/2014 *+ ' ()! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2014 , / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) DATED 6/1/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LIC U/S. 69 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR RS.5,73,220/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.72,889/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF RS.36,810/-. 2. EARLIER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 4/8/2014 AND AS ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 8/9/ 2014. THE NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD. ON 8/9/2014, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNE D TO 22/9/2014 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE BENCH DI D NOT FUNCTION ON SEVERAL DATES AND FINALLY IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 24/11/2014 AND THE DATE WAS DISPLAYED IN THE ./ I.T.A. NO.3008/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 2 NOTICE BOARD. ON 24/11/2014 NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 3. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSS ED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6 TO 6.3 OF HIS ORDER. ACCORDING TO FACTS STATED THEREIN A SPECIAL AUDIT WAS CONDUCTED AND 43 POLICIES WERE REFLECTED ON WHICH T OTAL PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.8,32,068/- WAS PAID, OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN THE PAYMENT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,58,848/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,73,220/- WAS CONSIDERED TO BE TAXABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAM E WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT,1961 (THE ACT). DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE A SSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION TO THE SAID ADDITION. THEREFORE , LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT STATED THE BASIS ON WHICH SUCH DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) COULD BE ASSAILE D. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED AND GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, THIS ISSUE IS DISCUSSED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA-7 TO 7.3. ACCORDING TO AO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNIS H ADEQUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SPECIAL AUDIT WITH RE SPECT TO LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.3,46,447/- AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT O F RS.1,84,048/- AND THESE WERE DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 20% EACH FOR A SUM OF RS.72,889/- AND RS.36,810/- RESPECTIVELY. LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 7.2 H AS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED BY THE AO IN PARA 11 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER: IN THIS CONNECTION WE WISH TO STATE HERE THAT WE A CCEPT OUT ABOVE LIABILITY AND ARE PREPARED TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNTS AS PER YOUR DIREC TION. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACT AND SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID LI ABILITY AND BEFORE HIM NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO THESE ADDITIONS, THERE FORE, THESE ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED. ./ I.T.A. NO.3008/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 3 5. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO THE FACT THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN FILE D EVEN BEFORE ME TO CONTRADICT THE THESE FINDINGS, I DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE SUSTENANCE OF THESE ADDITIONS, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/- . . (I.P.BANSAL) /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; - DATED 24/11/2014 , , , , ' '' ' %(. %(. %(. %(. /.( /.( /.( /.( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $ / THE APPELLANT 2. %& $ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 / CIT 5. .12 %( , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 23 4 / GUARD FILE. , , , , / BY ORDER, &.( %( //TRUE COPY// 5 55 5 / 6 6 6 6 ' ' ' ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . .VM , SR. PS