MURTUZA KUTUBUDDIN KHAMBATI, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4688/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 468819914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RANJANSR ARDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PHADKAR
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4688/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MURTUZA KUTUBUDDIN KHAMBATI, C/O- KHAMATI TOOLS COLLECTION, 139, LOHAR CHAWL, MUMBAI-400002 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-14(2)(2), ROOM NO.304, 3 RD FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) ( % / REVENUE) P.A. NO. AEQPK9223H !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. PHADKAR % / REVENUE BY SHRI M. RANJAN-SR. AR-DR & !%' ( $ ) / DATE OF HEARING : 05/08/2015 ( $ ) / DATE OF ORDER: 25/08/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 29/06/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO C ONFIRMING MURTUZA KUTUBUDDIN KHAMABAT ITA NO.4688/MUM/2012 2 THE ADDITION OF RS.31,50,001/- OUT OF BUSINESS RECE IPTS FROM SUPPLY OF TOOLS AND HARDWARES TO PETTY DEALERS AND FURTHER HOLING THAT SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. DURING THE HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.S. PHADKAR, ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT PEAK OF THE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DECLARED IN COME FROM SALARIES, BUSINESS INCOME AND ALSO INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,45,3 70/- IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 29/07/2009, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT ). THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY CASS, CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON TH E ASSESSEE. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.31,50,001/- IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH CENTRAL BA NK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS JOINT A CCOUNT WITH THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED MURTUZA KUTUBUDDIN KHAMABAT ITA NO.4688/MUM/2012 3 28/11/2011 CLAIMED THAT THE IMPUGNED ACCOUNT WAS NO T OPERATED BY HIM IN THE YEAR 2008-09 AND SOMEONE ELS E, USING HIS PAN, OPERATED THE ACCOUNT. ANOTHER NOTIC E U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS SENT TO THE MAIN BRANCH OF TH E BANK AND DETAILS SUMMARY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SOUGHT. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ACCOUNT WAS REGULARLY OPERATE D. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CASH S O DEPOSITED AND ALSO THE CHEQUES ISSUED TO WHOM AGAIN ST THE CASH DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUC E THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE TRANSACTIONS AND PURCHASE AND SALE WERE EFFECTED. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23/12 /2011 CLAIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE OUT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF SUPPLY OF TOO AND HARDWARE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO PURCHASE AND SALE REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER F URNISHED THE NAMES OF PURCHASE/SALE PARTIES NOR PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE. EVEN ON SPECIFIC ASKING BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS TO WHOM CHEQUES WERE ISSUED THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAINED ANYTHING AND SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SO FAR AS , THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS REGULARLY WITHDRAWING CASH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF PURC HASES IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. HAD THE ASSESSEE BEING ENGAG ED IN GENUINE ACTIVITY, AS CLAIMED BY HIM, SUCH TYPE OF E VIDENCE SHOULD EXIST. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS F ACTUALLY UNJUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). MURTUZA KUTUBUDDIN KHAMABAT ITA NO.4688/MUM/2012 4 FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 05/08/2015. SD/ - (R.C.SHARMA) S D/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; *! DATED : 25/08/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. !. . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,-. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & 1$ ( +, ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. & 1$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 3%4 /$!' , +,) +' 5 , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 03,$ /$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI