KEYMAN ADVISORY SERICES P. LTD., MUMBAI V. DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 432/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2209 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 432/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) Keyman Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Fllor 3, Plot 90, Ganpati Niwas, Dhirubhai Parekh Marg, Ladwadi, Kalbadevi Mumbai-400 002. PAN : AADCK2215K Vs. DCIT, CC-7(1) Aayakar Bhavan M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri T. Sankar Date of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 02.03.2022 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 21.6.2019 pertains to A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under :- 1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought to have accepted that no activity/business took place in the said assessment year and hence not filed the ITR. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in assessing the income of your appellant at Rs. 4,00,000/- as against Nil Income due to no business/activity took place. Your appellant disputes wrongful additions and submits that no activity/business took place in the said assessment year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making an addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said addition made by the Ld. CIT (A) is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in imposing Interest as per law. 2 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Any other ground or grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 3. In this case the Assessing Officer noted that the case was reopened on the basis of information available on ITD application system which showed that the assessee deposited amount of Rs. 4 lakhs in cash in ICICI Bank on 5.7.2012. In the absence of any response to the notice the Assessing Officer added the said sum as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. Learned CIT(A) upon assessee appeal noted that the assessee has not given any details. Hence, he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Facts of the case clearly indicate that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in his bank account. Despite several notices nobody appeared before the Assessing Officer explaining source and nature of deposit. Before learned CIT(A) also nobody appeared despite notices explaining source and nature of deposit hence learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Before the ITAT also despite several notices nobody has appeared explaining nature and source of cash deposit. In this view of the matter in my considered opinion there is no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Hence, I uphold the order of learned CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.3.2022. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 02/03/2022 3 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai