PRASHANT NARAYAN PATIL, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3847/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75327 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C CC C BENCH, BENCH, BENCH, BENCH, MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI , . !' !' !' !' BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & & & & SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA RAJENDRA RAJENDRA, AM , AM , AM , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. I.T.A. NO. I.T.A. NO. I.T.A. NO.38 3838 3847/MUM/2012 47/MUM/2012 47/MUM/2012 47/MUM/2012 ( #$ #$ #$ #$ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09) PRASHANT NARAYAN PATIL A-502, DECAN APARTMENTS, UNION PARK, KHAR(W) MUMBAI-400052 $ $ $ $ / VS. ITO-19(1)(1) MUMBAI '& ./ ' ./ PAN/GIR NO. :AAHPP6440N ( &( / APPELLANT APPELLANT APPELLANT APPELLANT) .. ( )*&( / RESPONDENT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT) #$ #$#$ #$ +, +, +, +, - . - . - . - . /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ' ' ' ' - . - . - . - . / REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI PRAKASH $ $ $ $ - -- - , , , , / DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH JANUARY 2014 /0% /0% /0% /0% - -- -, , , , /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 ND JANUARY 2014 !1 / O R D E R PER : , . . / VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2012 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1) THE APPELLANT SAYS & SUBMITS THAT THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 40A(3) TO PAYMENT S AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,60,086/-MADE IN CASH TO CERTAI N LABOURERS. THE APPELLANT SAYS & SUBMITS THAT SECTIO N 40A(3) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE SAYS & SUBMITS THAT THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDIT ION OF RS.67,855/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF THE A MOUNT ITA NO.3847/M/2012 PRASHANT NARAYAN PATIL 2 THAT WAS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE AS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. 3) THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE SAYS & SUBMITS THAT THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AD HO C DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,834/- , BEING ONE-THIRD OF T HE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF CAR EXPENSES AND CAR LOAN INTEREST. 4) THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE SAYS & SUBMITS THAT THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNTS REFLECTED IN THE BANK PASS BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT/A SSESSEES BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA A ND ICICI BANK, AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. 3. NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WH EN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED REPEATEDLY FOR HEARING DESPITE A NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECORD. ACCORD INGLY, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL EX-PART E. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. GROUND NO. 1 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40A (3) OF THE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LABOUR CHARGES OF ` 1,60,086/- PAID IN CASH. THE A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT CONFIRMATION OF LA BOUR CHARGES PAID. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT THE LABOUR C HARGES PAID MOSTLY IN CASH BUT COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY CONFIRMATION. ACCO RDINGLY, THE A.O DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING OF SECTION 40A(3). ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY THE A.O FOR WANT OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION. ITA NO.3847/M/2012 PRASHANT NARAYAN PATIL 3 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A S WELL AS BEFORE US AND FURTHER NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO C ONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W QUA THIS ISSUE. 7. GROUND NO. 2 REGARDING ADDITION OF ` 67,855/- CL AIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SHOWN AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF ` 67,855/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DETAIL AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE A.O TREATED THE CLAIM O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FORM OTHER SOURCES. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WA NT OF MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. 8. SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBS TANTIATE THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE THEREF ORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. 9. GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. THE A.O NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED MOTOR CAR E XPENSES OF ` 55,759/- AND INTEREST ON CAR LOAN OF ` 12,744/-. TH E A.O FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED 1/3 RD OF THE DEPRECIATION ON CAR TREATING FOR PERSONAL USE BUT THE SAME PROPORTI ON WAS NOT DISALLOWED IN RESPECT OF CAR EXPENSES AND CAR LOAN INTEREST. ITA NO.3847/M/2012 PRASHANT NARAYAN PATIL 4 ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O DISALLOWED 1/3 RD OF THE CAR EXPENSES AND CAR LOAN INTEREST. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. 10. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISALLOWED 1/3 RD DEPRECIATION ON THE CAR ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE THEN THERE IS NO ERROR IN ADOPTING THE SAME PROPORTION AND ANALOGY WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER CAR EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE PER SONAL USE OF THE CAR BY DISALLOWING 1/3 RD DEPRECIATION ON THE CAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O IS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING 1/3 RD OF THE OTHER EXPENSES RELATING TO THE CAR AND CAR LOAN INTEREST. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS . THE A.O NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED IN CASH A SUM OF ` 1,10,000/- IN UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ` 26,500/- IN ICICI BANK. THE A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL OR MATERIAL TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O MADE AN A DDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 1,36,500/- BY TREATING AS AN UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT U/S 68. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE A.O FOR WANT OF ANY DETAIL, EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION. NOTHING HAS B EEN BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CAS H DEPOSIT IN THE BANK THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL TO T HE FINDING OF THE ITA NO.3847/M/2012 PRASHANT NARAYAN PATIL 5 AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014 SD/- SD/- ( ) !' (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) # !' (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 22 ND JANUARY 2014 SUBODH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI