IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.35/LKW/2024
Assessment Year: 2020-21
Rajeev Jaiswal and Others
72,Newada Sheikhan,
Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243001
v. Assessment Unit (NFAC),
Income Tax Department
PAN:AAQFR4268R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: None
Respondent by: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Date of hearing: 05 08 2024
Date of pronouncement: 19 08 2024
O R D E R
PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the
order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),
Delhi dated 12.01.2024 for the assessment year 2020-21.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following
grounds: -
“Ground No. 1 The learned CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred in
confirming the addition of Rs.5,56,88,026/- made by the
assessing officer with total disregard to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
Ground no.2 The learned CIT(A), NFAC further erred in
confirming the addition made by the assessing officers without
appreciating the facts of the case.
Ground no.3 The learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that
the assessee prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in
not furnishing the submission in time before the first appellate
authority.
ITA No.35/LKW/2024
Page 2 of 5
Ground no.4 The assessee reserves its right to add, amend, alter
or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. However, finding
that the matter can be decided in the absence of the Assessee/on
behalf of the assessee, we have decided to dispose of the appeal
after hearing the ld. CIT (D.R.) and after perusing the material on
record.
4. The assessee filed statement of income showing of
Rs.7,43,780/-. The assessee total income was assessed of
Rs.7,43,780/-. In the assessment order addition was made as
follows. The relevant portion of the assessment order reproduced
as under: -
“The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a
partnership firm engaged in the business of wholesale trade of
liquor for human consumption. For the year under
consideration, the assessee filed his return of income on
05/01/2021 declaring total income of Rs.7,43,780/- and
claimed refund of Rs.26,15,380/-. Consequently, the case was
selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) as well
as section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the
Act”) were issued and served upon the assessee. During the
course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had taken
loan from M/s. O.P. Associates of Rs.23,00,000/- but made
repayment amounting to Rs.2,35,77,000/- to M/s. O.P.
Associates which is more than the total loan taken. Further, it
was observed that the assessee firm has introduced large
capital/share capital during the year under consideration and
the amount of capital is Rs.70,85,981/- up from the last year
capital of Rs.41,42,288/- and so there is a increase of
Rs.29,43,693/-. Accordingly, the increase in capital is treated
as his own unaccounted money routed through different
channels. Therefore, the difference of Rs.70,85,981 +
41,42,288/- i.e. Rs.29,43,693/- as per section 69A of the Act
as unexplained and unsubstantiated amount. According to the
Assessing Officer (“AO”), the assessee has made repayment of
loan amounting to Rs.2,35,77,000/- which was more than the
loan taken by the assessee and so he was asked to explain
with complete details but the assessee has not made any
response in this regard. Since the assessee has filed to give
any justification/explanation regarding sources of loan
repayment to M/s. O.P. Associates amounting to
Rs.2,35,77,000/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made an
addition of Rs.2,35,77,000/- added back to the income of the
ITA No.35/LKW/2024
Page 3 of 5
assessee as per section 69A of the Act. Further, perusal of
balance-sheet, it was observed that the assessee has taken
advance from customers amounting to Rs.2,89,74,373/- but
reply dated 21/01/2022, he has submitted that the assessee
has not received any advance from the customer during the
year under consideration. The question was raised specifically
at point no. 3 of notice dated 11/03/2022 but the assessee
failed to give any justification/explanation in support of its this
regard. Hence, the same is treated as routing his own
unaccounted money in the form of advance. Such kind of
explanation is baseless and is not acceptable, as it is his own
unaccounted money being routed through the other accounts in
the form of advance payments. Since, the assessee could not
prove the genuineness of advance taken and so the amount
totaling to Rs.2,89,74,373/- is disallowed and added back to
the total income of the assessee as per section 69A of the Act.
Further, during the year under consideration, the assessee has
shown expenses towards salary and wages of Rs.9,64,800/-
this figure was Rs.4,84,800/- for the AY. 2019-10. The
increase in turnover is not in proportion to the increase in
salary. As the assessee has failed to give any
justification/explanation in support of extra increase in salary
expenses. Hence, 20% of this salary expenses is being
disallowed on very reasonable basis, accordingly 1,92,960/-
is being disallowed and added back to the income of the
assessee. According to the AO, the assessee nowhere justify
his claim, therefore, the AO raised the addition in sum of
Rs.5,64,31,806/- and the total income of the assessee was
assessed to the tune of Rs.5,64,31,806/-.”
5. In the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, despite various
notices being issued, no reply/submission was filed on behalf of
the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned ex-parte order dated
12/01/2024, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by
the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before
us.
6. The ld. DR, per contra, relying on the orders of the
authorities below, submitted that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC afforded
various opportunities to the assessee to represent its case, but
the assessee failed to contest its case before the Ld. CIT(A),
NFAC. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC was justified in dismissing
the appeal preferred by the assessee and no interference is called
for in his order.
ITA No.35/LKW/2024
Page 4 of 5
7. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”)
considered the rival submissions and perused the material
available on record. At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted that
assessee has not appeared before Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO at
the time of assessment proceedings even several notices were
sent to assessee on the given address. Subsequently, assessee
filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and even before him, assessee
was not appeared before Ld. CIT(A) after sending notices on the
given address in Form 36, and the Assessing Officer has passed
detailed and speaking order in respect of the various additions
made. The assessee has not brought any material during the
appellate proceedings in ITAT or, earlier, during appellate
proceedings in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Neither side has
brought any materials for our consideration to persuade us to
interfere with the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the
Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the orders of Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer is
upheld.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/08/2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [SUBHASH MALGURIA]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED: 19/08/2024
Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)
ITA No.35/LKW/2024
Page 5 of 5
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. DR
By order
// True Copy//
Assistant Registrar