RUPALI ASHOK TIKE, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3765/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9119 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Salary income; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM & SHRI SHAKTIJIT DEY, JM ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 1 2 : ASST.YEAR 2001 - 200 2 MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE 301, GULMOHAR APARTMENT K.W.CHITALE PARK, DADAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400 028. PAN : ABTPT9655N. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 18(2)(4) MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : --- NONE --- RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PURSHOTTAM KUMAR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 .08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10. 2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 22.03.2012 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1 - 200 2 . 2 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/SEC 68 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 OF RS.93,16,482/ - WHICH IS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEAL). DURING THE COURSE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE APPELLANT THAT ALL THE PARTIES WHERE REMAIN PRESENT AND GIVEN THEIR STATEMENT ON OATH. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AND ALTER AND AMEND THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: - 3.1 THE ASSESSEE EARNS COMMISSION INCOME ON BOOKING OF TICKETS AND SERVICE CHARGES ON REPAIRS OF VEHICLES. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE BANK STATEMENTS AND NARRATION OF EACH ENTRY WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. HE OBSERVED THAT I T IS SEEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/4/2000 TO 31/3/2001 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.1,76, 16,482/ - INTO HER BANK ACCOUNTS. OUT OF THIS RS.1,20,00,000/ - IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSES IN HER BALANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOANS. THAT T HE CONTINUATION OF THESE LOANS AND SOURCES OF BAL ANCE DEPOSIT OF RS. 56,16,482/ - WERE CALLED FOR. THAT T HE ASSESSEE'S REPR ESENTATIVES TILL DATE TILED THE CONFIRMATION OF LOANS OF RS.83,00,000/, THE CONTINUATION IN RESPECT OF BALANCE LOANS AND SOURCE BALANCE DEPOSITS ARE NOT FILED. THAT T HEREFORE, THE S OURCE OF BALANCE DEPOSIT OF RS. 93,16,482/ - REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. HENCE THE A.O. HELD THAT HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO TREAT THESE DEPOSITS OF RS.93,16,482/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND TO TREAT THIS AS A UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2001 - 2002. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. HE ALSO OBTAINED REMAND REPORT. BASED UPON THE ABOVE, LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 3 5.2 REGARDING THIS ISSUE APPELLANT HAD MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE EARLIER CIT(A)'S IN THIS OFFICE HAVE REMANDED THIS MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 10.10.2011HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REMAND REPORT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. FIR ST OF ALL, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE VIDE LETTER NO.CIT(A)XVIII/ REMAND REPORU2005 - 06 DTD. 27.03.2006 WHEREIN COPY OF SEVERAL CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE ENCLOSED WITH DIRECTION FOR EXAMINATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE LOANERS REVEALED THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CHEQUE, BUT NO CHEQUE NUMBER AND BANK NAME ON WHICH IT IS DRAWN IS MENTIONED ON THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALSO THESE CHEQUE ENTRIES ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEE'S ANY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF LOANS. EVEN IN ONE OR TWO CASES PAN NO IS NOT GIVEN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 15.05.2006 TO FILE COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF R ETURN OF INCOME, BANK STATEMENTS ACCOUNT OF LOANER TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS THESE LOANERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS. THUS, DURING THE REMAN D PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THIS LOAN AMOUNTS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF LOAN TRANSACTION FROM THESE PARTIES REMAINED UN - EXAMINED, UNEXPLAINED AND UNVER IFIED. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER PROVIDING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS AND REMAND REPORT DATED 7 - 9 - 2007 WAS SUBMITTED. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER NO.CIT(A)XVI LL/ REMAND REPOT/200 8 - 09 DTD. 05.0 8 .2007 DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HER CLAIM. HENCE AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A), OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DATES AS REQUESTED BY HER OR HER AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. HOWEVER, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT 1 EXPLAIN THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE UNDERSIGNED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 4 SR.NO. DATE OF HEARINGS REMARKS 1 THIS OFFICE LETTER DTD.1 0.08.2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT VARIOUS DETAILS LIKE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS WITH NARRATION FOR EACH ENTRY ABOVE RS.20,000 / - CASH FLOW S TATEMENT . DETAILS LOAN TAKEN - OLD & SQUARED OFF DURING THE YEAR DETAILS OF DEPOSIT OF RS.56,16,482/ - THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS IN TIME. FURTHER, ON 20.09.2009 MR.NILESH JOSHI, UT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PART DETAILS IN TAPAL OTHER THAN DETAILS RELATED TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. AFTER THAT NEITHER ASSESSEE ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY DETAILS. 2 THE REMINDER WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE IN AUGUST '2010. MR. NILESH JOSHI, VIDE LETTER DTD.29.07.2010 SUBMITTED LETTER IN TAPAL REQUESTED FOR THE ADJOURNMENT FOR AT LEAST ONE MONTH. 3 FURTHER , VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DTD.24.08.2011, THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMITTED THE VARIOUS DETAILS AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR ON 6 - 9 - 2011. THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED ON 26.08.2011 PERSONALLY. SHE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AS PER LETTER DATED 24.08.2011 AND CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 6.9.20114. HEARING ON 6 - 9 - 2011 THE ASSESSE E ATTENDED PERSONALLY AND AGAIN REQUESTED FOR TWO WEEK'S TIME. HOWEVER, CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 12 .09.2011 HEARING ON 23 - 09 - 2011 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER IN TAPAL ON 12.09.2011 AND REQUESTED TO ADJOURN THE HEARING IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. 2011. HOWEVER, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.09.2011 ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 5 HEARING ON 23 - 09 - 2011 ON 23.09.2011: THE ASSESSEE HERSELF ATTENDED BUT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. SHE WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FINAL REMINDER FROM THE CIT(A). THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DTD.27.09.2011 IN TAPAL AND AGAIN REQUESTED ONE WEEKS TIME. ON 27.09.2011 A LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSES AS FINAL REMINDER AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR FINAL HEARING ON 04.10.2011 ON 4.10.2011, MRS. RUPALI TIKE, THE ASSESSEE HERSELF AND MR. NILESH JOSHI, CA ATTENDED BUT NO SUBMISSION WAS MADE. THEY AGAIN SOUGHT AD JOURNMENT FOR FINAL SUBMISSION ON 7.10.2011. THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE AWARE THAT FAILING TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS CALLED FOR ON 7 - 10 - 2011, THE REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON 07.10.2011 NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR HAS ANY SUBMISSION BEEN MADE IN TAPAL. FROM THE INITIAL STAGE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NON COOPERATIVE AND HAS SOUGHT ONLY ADJOURNMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME BUT F A ILED TO MAKE ANY CONCRETE SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE RAISED. AS IT COULD BE SEEN THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE DETAILS AND ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS OF HER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY CONCRETE DETAILS NOR EXPLAINED & PROVED HER SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE YOU AND HAS BEEN ONLY REPEATEDLY ASKING FOR MORE TIME TO FILE THE DETAILS. THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ARE LONG PENDING FOR VERIFICATION OF ASSESSEE'S DETAILS WHICH ARE NOT BEING FURNISHED IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING GIVEN. THEREFORE, REPORT IS SUBMITTED ON THE BASI S OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001 - 02 WAS PASSED U/.S 143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 29.05.2005 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.98 , 11 , 420/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS.2,66,410 / - . AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 6 FROM ITO 1 (2)(3). MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,29,00,001/ - AS ON 31.03.2003 FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES AND DEBENTURES OF MIS T ANNA BUILDERS PVT LTD HELD BY M/ S NIBLICK INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD. AND ALSO ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS. 70 LACS IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001 - 02, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 1,76,16,412/ - INTO HER BANK ACCOUNTS. OUT OF THIS 1,20,00,000/ - WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BALANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOANS. THE CONFIRMATION OF THESE LOANS AND SOUR CES OF BALANCE DEPOSIT OF RS.56, 16,482/ - WERE CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE COULD SUBMIT CO NFIRMATION OF LOANS TO THE TUNE OF RS.83,00,000/ - ONLY. SHE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES I DETAILS IN RESPECT OF BALANCE LOANS AND DEPOSITS OF RS.93,16,482/ - . THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS OF RS.93,16,482/ - WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U / S 68. THE ASSESSES CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR AND REMANDED TO THE UN DERSIGNED IS DISCUSSED AS UNDER : - 5. UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.1,76,16,482/ - IN HER DANK ACCOUNTS OUT OF WHICH RS.1,20,00,000 / - IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS UNSECURED LOAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR CONFIRMATION OF THESE LOANS AND SOURCES OF BALANCE CASH DE POSIT OF RS.56,16,482/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE COULD SUBMIT CONFIRMATION OF LOANS TO THE TUNE OF RS,83,00,000/ - ONLY. DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER - 1. SAVITA ENTERPRISES RS. 70,00, 000 / - 2. DEEPALI TIKKE (MAURYA) RS. 3,0 0,000/ - 3. ASHOK TIKKE RS. 5,00,000/ - 4. GEORGE HIWAIE RS. 5,00.000/ - TOTAL RS.83,00,000/ - THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE LOANS TO THE TUNE OF RS.83,00,000 / - OU T OF TOTAL LOANS OF RS. 1,20,00, 000 / - . THE ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 7 ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OF BALANCE LOAN OF RS.37,00,000/ - AND SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.56, 16 , 482/ - DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ALLOWING LO ANS TO THE TUNE OF RS.83,00,000/ - TREATED BALA NCE LOANS ( RS.37,00,000) AND DEPOSIT ( RS. 56,16,482) TOTALING TO RS.93, 15,482/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED ITS U/ S 68. 5.1 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), LOAN CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE FOLLOWING LOAN PARTIES HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ARE FORWARDED BY Y OUR GOOD SELF FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION WITH THE BANK STATEMENTS SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTIES LOAN AMOUNT 1. SHRI HEMAND DUBEY 88,24,300 (PROP SAVITA ENTERPRISES) 2. DIPALI MAURYA 3,00,000 3. ASHOK TIKE 15,00,000 4. GEORGE HIWAL E 5,00,000 5. RAJNEESH BILLARD 2,00,000 5.2 ON BEING REMANDED, VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES AS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE CHART WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY MY PREDECESSOR AS WELL AS BY ME. HOWEVER, AS PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CHART THE ASSESSEE FOR ONE OR O THER PLEA HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SPECIFIC DETAILS CALLED FOR TO PROVE THE LOANS AND CASH DEPOSIT WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND TRIED TO AVOID FURNISHING THE CORRECT AND COMPLETE DETAILS. 5.3 AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ANALYZED ALONG WITH THE PART DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DTD.24.08.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: 1) PLEASE GIVE COMPLETE DETAILS OF LOANS TAKEN AND GIVEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND CORRESPONDING ENTRIES REFLECTING THE SAID TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK PASS BOOK. 2) COMPLETE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ALONGWITH DAILY CASH BOOK SUMMARY AND PR OOF OF SOURCES OF SUCH DEPOSITS. ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 8 THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FACTS THE FACTS THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS REPORT WOULD BE SENT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN DETAIL ( CHART - PARA - 2) ) , IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION 1 SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ON THE ABOVE SAID ISSUES. 5.4 DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDING THE ASSESSES HAS RELIED UPON THE LOAN CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR HONOUR. MY PREDECESSOR HAS ISSUED LETTER CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS' FROM THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THE ASSESSE E 'S CLAIM OF LOANS OF 1,20,00,000/ - AND DEPOSITS OF RS.56, 16,412/ - IN THE BANK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY SUPPORTING OTHER THAN LOAN CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HENCE, MY PREDECESSOR, ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE LOAN PARTIES AND RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF LOAN PARTIES U/S. 131 OF THE L.T. ACT.1961. 5.5 THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY MY PREDECESSOR BY ISSUING SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE ACT TO LOAN CREDITORS AND THEIR STATEMENTS HAS BEEN RECORDED. THE OUTCOME OF THE SAME IS SUBMITT ED AS UNDER : - A) SHRI HEMAND DUBEY (PROP. SAVITA ENTERPRISES) SHRI HEMANT DUBEY HAS F ILED LOAN CONFIRMATION OF RS.88, 24,7 00 / - AS FAMILY LOAN TO ASSESSEE I.E. HIS WIFE, ROOPALI TIKE. IT IS RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT THAT SHRI HEMANT DUBEY WAS RUNNING A PRO PRIETARY CONCERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S SAVITA ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT AND EXPORT AND IS ASSESSED TO TAX SINCE AY. 97 - 98. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONLY BANK STATEMENT REGARDING AY. 2001 - 02 SUCH AS DATE OF FILING RET URN/WARD/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NOTICE / INCOME RETURNED/BALANCE SHEET/CAPITA! ALE/PROFIT & LOSS NOT FILED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS TIME BARRED MATTER. HOWEVER IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED, IT IS STATED THAT HE WILL TRACE OUT THE DOCUMENTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE A ND WILL FILE AFTERWARDS. HOWEVER, TILL DATE NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED SO FAR. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 9 SUBSEQUENTLY HE HAS NOT FILED THE DOCUMENTARY PROOF TO PROVE HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS AS THE LOAN CREDITOR. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE LOAN CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S SAVITA ENTERPRISES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WAS ONLY OF RS. 70,00,000 / - (WH ICH WAS EVEN ALLOWED BY THE A.O ) AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED LOA N CONFIRMATION OF RS.88,24,700/ - B EFORE YOUR GOOD SELF. HENCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ALL OW BALANCE LOANS OF RS 18,24,700 / - CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED NOW. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, THE UNEXPLAINED PART OF ALLEGED LOAN GIVEN BY SHRI HEMANT DUBEY IS PROPERLY' ADDED U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. B ) DIPALI TIKE (MAURYA) : MS. D SEPATI TIKE HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS .3, 00,000 / - TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, STATEMENT OF MS. DIPALI TIKE ( MAURYA) WAS RECORDED AND IN HER STATEMENT SHE HAS CONFIRMED THE LOAN OF RS.3, 00,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LOAN OF RS.3,00,000/ - AS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. C) ASHOK TIKE: MR. ASHOK TIKE HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS .10, 00,000 / - TO ROOPALI TIKE, HIS DAUGHTER. IT IS RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT THAT DURING PERIOD AY.2001 - 02, SHRI ASHOK TIKE WAS WORKING IN CENTRAL RAILWAY AND IN RECEIPT OF SALARY INCOME OF RS. 1,40,000/ - (APPROX) P.A . MR. ASHOK TIKE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS.1 0,00,0 00/ - TO THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE. HOWEVER, NO BANK STATEMENT OR SOURCES OF LOANS GIVEN BY HIM WAS SUBMITTED. SINCE THE MR . ASHOK TIKE WAS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHEREFROM THE MONEY FOR ADVANCING SUCH A HUGE LOAN HAS BEEN GENERATED. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS IS NOT CONVINCING AND UNBELIEVABLE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON THIS COUNT APPEARS TO BE PROPER. ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 10 FURTHER, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT: MR. ASHOK TIKKE HAS CONFIRMED LOAN OF RS. 10,00 , 000/ - IN HIS STATEMENT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 15,00,000/ - . DURING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION OF RS .5, 00,000 / - FROM THE SAID PARTY BEFORE THE AO. (WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O.). HENCE, ALL THE FACTS, EVIDENCES AND LOAN CONFIRMATION PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT OR BEFORE YOU OR DURING REMAND PROCEEDING AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ASHOK TIKKE IS CONTRADICTING TO EACH OTHER. HENCE THE CORRECTNESS, GENUINENESS AND APPROPRIATEN ESS OF THE LOAN FROM SHRI. ASHOK TIKKE IS DOUBTFUL AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIABLE AND CORRECT. GEORGE HIWALA : LOAN ADVANCED RS, 500000/ - . IN THIS REGARD, STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE HIWALEE WAS RECORDED AND IN HIS STATEMENT HE HAS CONFIRMED T HE LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/ - TO THE ASSESSES. THE LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/ - HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING. O FFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RAINEESH BILLAVA : LOAN ADVANCED RS.2 LAC. CONFIRMATIONS WITH PAN FILED AND LOAN ADVANCED BY CHEQUE AND THE S AME IS REFLECTING IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSES, HOWEVER, THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN PARTY REMAINED UNEXPLAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF BANK STATEMENT' IT REC ORDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS . TO SUM UP, OUT OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN, THE CREDI T WORTHINESS OF THE FOLLOWING LOAN CREDITORS/AD SOURCE OF FUND TO ADVANCE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ONLY. SR. NO. LOAN PARTY ORIGINAL LOAN ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE A.O. REVISED LOAN REMARKS ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 11 1. SAVITA ENTERPRISES 70,00,000 88,24,700 IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE LOAN CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WAS ONLY OF RS. 70, 00 , 000/ - (WHICH WAS EVEN ALLOWED BV THE A.D ) AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED LOAN CONFIRMATION OF RS.88,24,700/ - BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF. HENCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW BALANCE LOANS OF RS. 18,24,700/ - CANNOT BE ENTERT AINED NOW. 2, DEEPALI TIKKE (MAURYA) 3,00,000 3,00,000 THE LOAN HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. ASHOK TIKE 5,00,000 15,00,000 SHRI ASHOK TIKKE HAS CONFIRMED IN HIS STATEMENT LOAN OF RS. 10 LAKHS ONLY AND CONFIRMATION FILED ARE OF RS.15,00,000/ - . HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN RS.10,00,000 / - AND ADDITIONAL LOAN OF RS,5, 00 ,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, THE AO. HAS ALREADY ALLOWED RS.5,00,000/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM SHRI. ASHOK TIKKE. 4. GEORGE HIWALE 5,00,000 5,00,000 THE BAN HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. RAJNEESH BILLAVA 2,00,000 NO DETAILS OTHER THAN LOAN CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED. THE SAID TRANSACTION IS REFLECTING IN BANK STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE. 5.6 AS REGARDS BALANCE DEPOSIT OF RS.56 , 16,482/ - , IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY EXPLANATION NOR ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDING EVEN AFTER PROVIDING SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REPEATEDLY AND SPECIFICA LLY ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 12 ASKED BY MY PREDECESSOR AS WELL AS ME TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR BANK BOOK OR CASH BOOK SUMMARY. HOWEVER, NO EXPLANATION OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN FAILED TO SUBMIT THE NARRATION OF EACH CREDIT OR DEBIT ENTRY IN THE BANK. ON PERUSAL OF BANK ENTRIES, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS ARE PURELY CASH DEPOSIT AND NO EXPLANATION OF THEIR SOURCES IS SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE: HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BY THE A.O. IS FULLY JUSTIFIABLE AND CORRECT. 5.7 TO SUM THE, OUT OF TOTAL 1.20 C RORE UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN, THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER PROVIDING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF BALANCE LOANS COMPLETELY WITH PROPER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HENCE ALL LOANS' OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE NEVER AT ANY TIME HAS PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES OR EXPLANATION FOR SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.56,16,482/ - . HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED AND CORRECT. B. HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME: DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ONE ROW HOUSE AT ANDHERI - (W) AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING ONE HOUSE AT DADAR(W), MUMBAI. HOWEVER, NO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 22.0 9 . 2004 INFORMED THAT SHE IS RESIDING AT DADAR. HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED DADAR PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND IN RESPECT OF OTHER PROPERTY AT ANDHERI IT WAS TREATED AS DEEMED TO BE LET OUT PROPERTY AS PER SEC. 23, THE VALUE OF THE SAME WA S WORKED OUT TAKING 10 OF COST OF PROPERTY AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) I.E. 30 OF ANNUAL LET OUT VALUE WHICH RES ULTED INTO ADDITION OF RS.2,25,0 78/ - . IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LYING VACANT AND ANNUAL LET OUT VALUE' ADO PTED BY ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 13 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOO HIGH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANNUAL RATEABLE VALUE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL LET OUT VALUE AT 10 OF INVESTMENT OF PROPERTY IS BASED ON THE FACTS. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. '' 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING THE APPELLANT HAS FILED VARIOUS CONFIRMATION LETTERS FOR T HE LOAN TAKEN. IN SOME CASES PAN HAVE BEEN GIVEN. I FIND THAT OUT OF A TOTAL LOAN CLAIM OF RS. 1,20,00, 000 / - ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ALLOWED LOANS TO THE TUNE OF RS.83,00,000/ - . THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OF BALANCE LOAN OF RS.37,00, 0 00 / - . SIMILARLY, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.56,16,482 / - ALSO COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. THEREFORE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.93,16,482 / - WAS ADDED. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY FURTHER DETAILS REGARDING THESE LOANS. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE LOANS HAVE BEEN ALSO NOT FILED. THERE IS NO BALANCE SHEET, INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. THERE ARE CONTRADICTORY CLAIM AS APPELLANT IS MAKING DI FFERENT CLAIM OF THE LOAN AMOUNT ITSELF REGARDING M/S.SAVITA ENTERPRISES AND MR.ASHOK TIKKE. SECTION 68 PROVIDES THAT WHEN ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM, IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. SECTION 68 CASTS AN OBLIGATION ON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE FUND CREDITED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN CASE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO BROADLY PROVE THREE THINGS I.E. THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, THE CREDIT - WORTHINES S OF THE CREDITOR TO ADVANCE LOAN AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT ALL THESE THREE REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE PROPERLY PROVED. IN THE CASE OF PRECISION FINANCE P LTD 208 ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 14 ITR 465 (CAL) IT HAS BEEN HELD, THAT MERE FURN ISHING OF PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. IN THE CASE OF SHANKAR INDUSTRIES 114 ITR 679 (CAL), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS ALSO NOT ENOUGH. IN THE CASE OF W.K.SRINIVASULU NAIDU 117 ITR 690 (CAL) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FILING OF CONFIRMATORY LETTERS IS NOT ENOUGH TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 890 (SC) SUPREME COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT RELEVANT CRITERION FOR EXAMINING CASH CR EDIT. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF PROVING THE LOANS AND THE CASH CREDITS. IN FACT, HE HAS MADE CONTRADICTORY CLAIM. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS. 93,16,482 / - IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS CONFIRMED. THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOUND THAT HEARING OF THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FIXED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS EARLIER AND ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE BY HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 7. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE N OTE THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CAREFULLY APPRECIATED THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOANS OF RS.1,20,00,000. FOR THE LOAN OF RS.83,00,000 DETAILS WERE PROVIDED AND NECESSARY RELIEF WAS GRANTED. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS AND THE COGENCY OF THE OTHER LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.37,00,000 WAS NOT PRODUCED. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBTAINED REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGAIN GIVEN THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ELABORATELY BROUGHT OUT ITA NO. 3765 /MUM/20 12 . MS.ROOPALI ASHOK TIKE. 15 THAT DETAILS FOR RS.37 LAKH WORTH OF LOANS WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FURTHERMORE, CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.56,16,482 COULD ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIR M THE SAME. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 3 RD D AY OF OCTOBER , 2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAKTIJIT DEY ) ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 03.10. 2017 . DEVDAS* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A), MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE.