BABLA COLLECTION, KALYAN V. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

ITA 3556/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 355619914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R PATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: JHARNA B HARILAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B BENCH. . . , , BEFORE S/SH.I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 3556/MUM/2013, ! ! ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 M/S BABLA COLLECTION, GANDHI CHOWK, BAZAR PETH, KALYAN (W), KALYAN- 421301 VS ITO WD (3)(2), RANI MANSION, MURBAD ROAD, KALYAN(W), KALYAN-421301 PAN: AAJPT4300K ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# / RESPONDENT) &' &' &' &' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JHARNA B. HARILAL ) ( / REVENUE BY : SHRI V.R. PATIL ) )) ) '* '* '* '* / DATE OF HEARING : 12-08-2014 +,! ) '* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-08-2014 , 1961 ) )) ) 254 )1( '-' '-' '-' '-' . . . . ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED.28.02.2013 OF THE CIT(A )-I,THANE, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS APPEAL: 1. AS AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS 634,426/- REPRESENTS LOAN T AKEN DURING THE PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS. IT IS SUPPORTED BY BANK ENTRY AND LOAN CONFIRMATION, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. LOAN OF RS 133,920/- HAS BEEN GIVEN DURING THE YEAR WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY BANK ENTRY AND LOAN CONFIRMATION, SO IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDIT. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME O N 31.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1.61 LAKHS.ASSESMENT WAS PASSED ON 22.12.2009,U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,DETERMINING HIS INCOME AT RS. 9.78 LAKHS.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,ASSESS ING OFFICER (AO) HAD ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.143(2) AND 142(1)ON MORE THAN ONE OCCA SIONS,BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE AO.THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION O F RS. 6.34 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX.HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN AN ADDITION TO FURNITURE OF RS.. 4.85 LAKHS.BESIDES,HE HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES TO FOUR PARTIES, AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.33 LAKHS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. WIT H THE REQUIRED DETAILS,AS STATED EARLIER,SO THE AO MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP.HE HELD THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE,BUT REQUISITE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED.THEREFORE,THE FAA UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDITS (RS.. 6.43 LAKHS), DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AND UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT (RS.. 1.33 LAKHS) U/S 69A OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF B.N. BHATACHARYA AND ANOT HER (118 ITR 461),HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 3556/MUM/2013 M/S BABLA COLLECTION 2 3 .BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THA T ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL-CONVERSANT WITH THE TAXATION LAWS,THAT HE WAS NOT MUCH EDUCATED,THAT HE COULD NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE AO/FAA DUE TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES,THAT ASSESSEE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND C ONFIRMED BY THE FAA.AR SOUGHT THE PERMISSION FROM THE BENCH TO PRODUCE VARIOUS DOCUME NTS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO.IT WAS STATED THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUES BEFORE US AND WERE PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE,THA T HE WOULD APPEAR BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITY AND PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.DR OPPOSE T HE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS.HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNIT IES MADE AVAILABLE BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE B EFORE THE AO AND FAA.HE HAS AGREED TO FILE ALL THE PAPERS,IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK.IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE,WE ARE REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATIO N.THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO EXTEND FULL COOPERA -TION TO THE FAA AND PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUM ENTS BEFORE HIM ON 15.09.2014.FAA WOULD DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER THE ASSESSEE FILES DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES IN HIS SUPPORT.EFFEECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN P ART. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS P ARTLY ALLOWED. /'0 &' ) .'0 2 ) ' 34 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12TH AUGUST 2014 . . ) +,! 5 6 12 -' , 201 4 , ) - 7 SD/- SD/- . . / I.P. BANSAL) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 6 /DATE: 12 .08 . 2014. SK . . . . ) )) ) $'8 $'8 $'8 $'8 98!' 98!' 98!' 98!' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / '# 2. RESPONDENT / $%'# 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ : ; , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / : ; 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 8<- $' CH , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ - / %8' %8' %8' %8' $' $'$' $' //TRUE COPY// . / BY ORDER, = / 3 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI