RAJENDRA JAYANT EKLAHARE, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3744/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9041 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3744/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. RAJENDRA JAYANT EKLAHARE, RAM KUTIR, PANDIT GUNIDAS MARG, L.J. ROAD, MAHIM, MUMBAI 400 016 PAN: AACPE7860L VS. ITO WARD 18(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. N. HEMALATHA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE AO) HAS OBSERVED THAT THIS CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS O F AIR INFORMATION OF NON-FILERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO CREDIT CARD P AYMENT OF RS.2,46,241/- THROUGH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, BANG ALORE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME OR SUBM ITTED ANY EXPLANATION FOR FILING THE RETURN, THE CASE WAS REO PENED BY ISSUING ITA NO.3744/M/2017 M/S. RAJENDRA JAYANT EKLAHARE 2 NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 09.03.2012 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 13/3/2012 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE T HE RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT HAD DECIDED THE APPEA L BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 12. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REMAND REPORT OF T HE AO, REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, MY OBSERVATIONS ARE AS UNDER:- 12.1 IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME RELATES TO PAN AA DPE2153R OR ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF CREDIT CARD PA YMER.T OF RS.2,46,241/- MADE THROUGH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, BANGALORE, THE AO TREATED THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS. 2,46,241/- AS UN EXPLAINED EXPENSES U/S.690. IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-06 FROM PAN AACPE7860L WITH TH E INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SHOWING INCOME OF RS.2,05,579/-. HOWEVE R, NO CREDIT CARD DETAILS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS APPARENT FROM THE COPY OF SAID RETURN OF INCOME FILED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 12.2 IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE SUBMISSION DATED 11.0 7.2016 FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS AD MITTED THAT THE IT. DEPARTMENT INFORMED THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER 24.11 .2006 OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER PAN AADPE2153R IN THE NAME OF THE APPELL ANT. THEREUPON, THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 21.12.2006 REQUESTE D THE DEPARTMENT TO CANCEL THE SAID PAN AADPE2I53R. 12.3 IT IS ON RECORD THAT THE AIR INFORMATION ABOUT CREDIT CARD EXPENSES FOR F.Y. 200405 RELATED TO A.Y. 2005-06 PE RTAIN TO THE PAN AADPE2153R AND NOT THE PAN AACPE7860L THROUGH WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE ROI FOR A.Y. 2005-06. MOREO VER, THE APPELLANT IN ANOTHER SUBMISSION FILED ON 14.11.2016 HAS ADMIT TED THAT THE SAID CREDIT CARD EXPENSES ARE SHOWN IN HIS ROI FOR A.Y. 2005-06.THIS FACTUAL POSITION ESTABLISHES BEYOND DOUBT THAT DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT HAS USED THE PAN AADPE2 153R FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREDIT CARDS ISSUED BY STANDARD CHARTERE D BANK. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS ISSUED LETTER DATED 24.11.2 006 TO THE APPELLANT, HE HAS ACTED UPON IT WITH A REQUEST TO C ANCEL THE DUPLICATE PAN, BOTH BEING UTILIZED IN HIS FINANCIAL TRANSACTI ONS. ITA NO.3744/M/2017 M/S. RAJENDRA JAYANT EKLAHARE 3 12.4 SINCE HOLDING TWO PANS AND USING THEM SIMULTAN EOUSLY FOR FINANCIAL TRANSACTION BY A PERSON IS PROHIBITED UND ER THE IT. ACT, I DONOR FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES THROUG H PAN WHICH IS USED BUT DISOWNED LATER ON NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THESE CREDIT CARDS WERE MADE F ROM NORTH KANARA GSB COOP BANK LTD AND BANK OF BARODA ACCOUNTS OF NEETA IMPEX PROPRIETOR SHRI RAJENDRA EKLAHARE. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EST ABLISH BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1,97,58 2/- AS PERSONAL EXPENSES AND RS.48,658/- AS BUSINESS EXPENSES BEING REFLECTED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME ARE RELATABLE TO THE CREDIT CARD EXPENSES OF RS.2,4 6,241/- AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO. LOOKING TO THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED, IN MY OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR WITH RESPECT TO CREDIT CARD PAYMENT OF RS.2,46,241/- WHICH HAS B EEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES U/S.69C OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE , THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. THUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. D.R., I FIND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE ME. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND A NY ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO ENDORSE THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.10.2017. SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMB ER MUMBAI, DATED: 13.10.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.