NIKHIL U SINGH, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(1)(4),

ITA 3058/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0850 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/ SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM) I.T.A. NO. 3058 /MUM/20 13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) NIKHIL U. SINGH 24/B, NENSEY COTTAGE SANT GYANESHWAR ROAD WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY BORIVALI EAST MUMBAI - 400 066. VS. ITO 25(1)(4) BANDRA ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AVKPS0230R ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI B.S. BIST DATE OF HEARING 2 5 . 4 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 . 4 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2 013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 35, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 60,26,2 00/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 69 A OF THE ACT. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. SINCE THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAY BACK IN APRIL 2013, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF ` 60,26,200/ - . WHEN QUESTIONED, T HE ASSESSEE INITIALLY SUBMITTED THA T THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OF CASH LOANS RECEIVED LOAN 2 FROM FOUR PARTIES . WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT BY RECEIVING LOAN IN CASH, THE ASSESSEE SHIFTED HIS STAND AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS STARTED THE BUSINESS OF D EVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING AN APARTMENT BY NAME VENUS AND T HE AMOUNT WERE RECEIVED F ROM THE FOUR PARTIES AS ADVANCE AND NOT BY WAY OF LOAN. IN SUPPO RT OF THE CLAIM THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF ALLOTMENT LETTERS ISSUED TO FOUR PERSONS . SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE THE CASH CREDIT IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER A SSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` 60,26,200/ - AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY M ATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CREDIBLE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT HIS EXPLANATIONS. HENCE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE E N PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 . 4 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R MUMBAI ; DATED : 25 / 4 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./A SSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI