MOH. JAVED RAFIQUE SHAIKH, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3200/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9434 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3200/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) MOHD.JAVED MOHD RAFIQUE SHAIKH, E.NO.403, 4 TH FLOOR, VIVEK APT.CHS, CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ(E), MUMBAI 400 098 PAN:BCQPS8244B ...... APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(2)(3), MUMBAI. .... RESPO NDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. HEMALATHA DATE OF HEARING : 12/07/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/10/2017 ORDER THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTA INING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-35 MUMBAI DATED 18/02/2013, WHICH IN TURN, ARISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 15/12/2008. 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.21,6 2,800/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT C ONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 ITA NO.3200/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CHEQUE DEPOSITS OF RS. 3 ,22,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40.000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTED THAT NEITHE R THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE HAS APPEARED IN SPITE OF ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. THE RECORD FURTHER REVEALS THAT ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASI ON NOTICES OF HEARING HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE ADDRESS AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BY REGISTERED POST AND ON EACH OF TH E OCCASION IT HAS COME BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARK UNCLAIMED. UNDER THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TR IBUNAL) RULES, 1963, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DISPOSED OFF EX-PARTE AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT-REVENUE ON MERITS. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,45,671/-, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF AN AIR INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT AS SESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.17,62,800/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAIN TAINED WITH BHARAT CO- OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD., KALINA BRANCH DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN TH E ENSUING ASSESSMENT, THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.26,70,490/- BY , INTER-ALIA, CONSIDERING THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED OF RS.2 1,62,800/-, AS ALSO UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS RS.3,22,000/- AND ALSO RS. 40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS. THE CIT(A) NOTES THAT IN SPITE OF VAR IOUS OPPORTUNITIES, ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO.3200/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DID NOT ATTEND BEFORE HIM, AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS ADJUDICATED THE CONTROVERSY ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ACCORDIN GLY, HE AFFIRMED ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST SUCH A DECISION OF THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST ADDITION IS OF RS.21,62,800/-, WHICH REFLECTS VARIOUS CASH D EPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK AND BHA RAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE RECORDED A FINDING, AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED ITS CLA IM IN RESPECT OF SUCH DEPOSITS. IN PARA 9.7 OF HIS ORDER, THE CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY RECORDED SUCH A FINDING THAT EVEN BEFORE ME THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO DISTRACT FROM THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHICH IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THUS, ON THIS AS PECT ASSESSEE FAILS. 6. THE SECOND DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO A SUM OF RS .3,22,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE CIT (A) NOTES THAT THE AFORESAID SUM COMPRISED OF RS.25,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE ICIC I BANK BY TRANSFER AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,97,000/-, WHICH REPRESENTS A CHE QUE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK ( MUMBAI) LTD., THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS MUCH SMALLER AND, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. EVEN BEFOR E ME, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AFORESAID CREDITS, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD IS AFFIRMED. THUS, ON THIS AS PECT ALSO ASSESSEE FAILS. 4 ITA NO.3200/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) 7. THE LAST DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO LOW WITHDRAWA LS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ESTIMATED ADDITI ON HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE OR DERSL OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ASPECT ARE ALSO AFFIRMED. THUS, ON TH IS ASPECT ALSO ASSESSEE FAILS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 6/10/2017 SD/- (G.S.PANNU) ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 06/10/2017 VM , SR. PS 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./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI