MEENAL M GANDHI, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3886/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0432 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Retraction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3886/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SMT. MEENAL M. GANDHI FLAT NO. 402, SILVER GARDEN BEHIND J.B. NAGAR, KANTI NAGAR ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400059 VS. A C I T - 20(2) 6TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL, MUMBAI 400012 PAN AERPG8648F APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUMAN KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 22.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.02.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI DATED 24.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 . 2. AT THE OUTSET WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR NON THERE WAS ANY APPLICATION FO R ADJOURNMENT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD. WE ALSO NOTICED FRO M THE ORDER SHEET THAT ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, I.E. 26.11.2015 AND 22.0 1.2017 THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE BENCH. THEREF ORE THE CASE IS BEING DISPOSED OFF ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R . 3. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-31 E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS. 3,00,000/=OF CASH ACTU ALLY FOUND AND AS PER CASH BOOK ; 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 31 FA ILED TO APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO EXC ESS CASH FOUND DURING THE SURVEY; ITA NO. 3886/MUM/2014 SMT. MEENAL M. GANDHI 2 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -31 E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 15,10,520/- AS DIFFERENCE IN S TOCK ; 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -31 E RRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,00,000/= BEING THE UNRECORDE D SALES ; 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 31 AL SO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED A ND FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT: 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS- 31 FA ILED TO CONSIDER THE RETRACTION LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIA TELY AFTER THE SURVEY 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY WAS C ONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) ON 09.09.2009 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A DDITIONAL INCOME IN RELATION TO THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING THE SURV EY AS UNDER: - S.NO. DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT AMOUNT DISCLOSED 1 EXCESS CASH FOUND 3,00,000/ - 2 UNRECORDED SALES 27,00,000/- 3 EXCESS STOCK FOUND 15,10,520/- TOTAL 45,10,520/- THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE THE SAID INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THUS WITHDRAWING T HE AFFIRMATIONS MADE ON OATH ON 10.09.2009. THEREAFTER THE AO AFTER ISSU ING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` 45,10,520/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 58,90,020/-. 5.AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ` 3,00,000/- THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION NOR COULD THE FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT HER SIGNATU RES ON THE INVENTORY/STATEMENT WERE ANTE-DATED AND THUS CONFIR MED THE ADDITION. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ` 15,10,520/- THE DECLARATION OF STOCK MADE DURING ITA NO. 3886/MUM/2014 SMT. MEENAL M. GANDHI 3 THE SURVEY WAS NOT CORRECT AND THUS DISMISSED THE S AME AND IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ` 27,00,000/- IT REPRESENTS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN RECORDED SALES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) RECORDED THE SAME OBSERVA TION AND THUS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. A CAREFUL PERUSAL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REVEALS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE CONFIRMING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO ` 45,10,520/-. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TO CONTROVER T THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND CONSIDE RING THE MERITS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD CIT(A) HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AND THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -31, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 20, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.