SALAM AHMED JAVED AHMED SHAIKH, MUMBAI V. ITO 13(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4468/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1551 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 44AD; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4468/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) Salam Ahmed Javed Ahmed Shaikh Makker & Co, Shop No.9, Shamji Morarji Building, Champsi Bhimji Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 PAN : BNBPS1041J vs ITO 13(3)(4), Piramal Chamber Mumbai APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Hoshang B Irani – (DR) Date of hearing 01/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/08/2022 ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM): This appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai dated 28/04,2016 passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The solitary ground of appeal pertains to addition of Rs.28,27,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). 3. It is to note that the assessee has not appeared before us inspite of several opportunities and it has also been noted that the assessee has not made proper compliance before the lower authorities either. Therefore, we 2 ITA No. 4468/MUM/2016 proceeded to decide the appeal by hearing the Ld.DR and by perusing the materials available on record. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing karate training to the students and has filed return of income of Rs.4,19,660/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny as per the AIR information wherein the assessee has deposited cash amounting to R.28,27,000/- into the ICICI Bank, Mumbai during the impugned assessment year. It was observed that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details with regard to the source of deposit, bank statement and name, address and PAN of person from cash has been received. Inspite of several opportunities before the lower authorities, the assessee has not furnished the said details and has only submitted that the Savings Bank Account No.2610150564 of ICICI Bank, Mumbai has been held by the assessee alongwith his mother. The assessee further stated that the assessee’s mother has filed her return of income regularly and that the assessee’s name in the said account was only as a nominee. As no information pertaining to the source of cash deposit of the impugned amount was provided by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition to the said amount as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the said addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim and has also not furnished any documentary evidence pertaining to his claim. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. It is seen that the assessee has not appeared before us nor was he represented by an authorised representative except on 08/03/2022 and 06/04/2022 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s 3 ITA No. 4468/MUM/2016 representative. Even otherwise, the assesse has not submitted any documentary evidence before us to substantiate his claim. 6. Having heard the Ld.departmental representative and perused the materials on records, it is evident that there has been a cash deposit to the tune of Rs.28,27,000/- in the saving bank account maintained in ICICI Bank. The assessee, before the lower authorities has not denied the deposit but has only contended that it was the assessee’s mother, who was holding the account and that he was only a nominee for the said account. We cannot infer the same from any evidence pertaining to the bank account details as the assessee has filed to produce the same before us. It is stated that the assessee is filing his return under section 44AD and has not been maintaining any books of account. Before the lower authorities, the assessee has stated that he was only a joint holder of the said account and that the account belongs to his mother. The assessee further stated that the impugned transaction was done by the assessee’s mother and that the assessee’s mother has been filing her return of income regularly. It is observed that the assessee has furnished copy of return of income of his mother in which gross receipts of Rs.44,37,501/- has been declared and income has been offered under section 44AD @8% even in her case, Apart from this the assessee has not furnished any other details as to the source of receipts of the nature of business in his mother’s case as well as in the assessee’s case. The assessee has failed to produce a copy of bank account which reflected the cash deposit either before us or before the lower authorities. As the assessee has not been maintaining books of account, the assessee lacks evidence to substantiate his claim. The assessee has been shifting his onus on to his mother without any documentary evidence. As the assessee has failed to appear before us, in spite of several opportunities, we 4 ITA No. 4468/MUM/2016 infer that the assessee has no documentary evidence to prove his claim. From the above observation, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.CIT(A) and thereby we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 th August, 2022. Sd/- sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARSHI) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 29/08/2022 Pavanan 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// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai