Sri.K.R.Sureshkumar, Trichur V. The ACIT, Trichur

ITA 47/COCH/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Shri K.R. Sureshkumar, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Ernakulam, which treated a cash credit of Rs.1,62,33,155 in the capital account of M/s. Kallada Tours and Travels as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted the absence of representation for the appellant during the hearings and proceeded ex-parte. The primary issues were the correctness of the addition under Section 68 and the rejection of the claim to set off this addition against brought forward losses. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's additional evidence as irrelevant and upheld the addition but allowed the set-off against brought forward losses, referencing the decision in CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing and Printing Mills.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115521 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Fakir Mohammed Haji Hassan 247 ITR 290 (Guj), CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing and Printing Mills (2013) 219 Taxman 279 (Guj)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA No.47/Coch/2015 (Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri K.R. Sureshkumar Kallada House Thanissery Post Irinjalakuda, Thrissur Vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1) Thrissur PAN –AJCPS6553P Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022 O R D E R Per: S.S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11arises against the CIT(A)-V, Ernakulam’s order dated 28.10.2014 passed in case No. ITA 7/TCR/ R.2/CIT(A)-V/13-14 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. A perusal of the instant case suggests that this is an old appeal filed way back in the year 2015. We had adjourned this case on 07.11.2022 for today wherein nobody has turned up to represent the assessee. We thus proceed ex-parte against him. ITA No. 47/Coch/2015 Shri K.R. Sureshkumar 2 2. We notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating cash credit of Rs.1,62,33,155/- [in the capital account in the books of account of M/s. Kallada Tours and Travels] as unexplained under Section 68 of the Act followed by the rejection of his claim that this addition made deserves to be set off against brought forward losses of earlier years; respectively. 3. Learned DR highlighted the fact that the assessee appears to have filed his additional evidence application dated 26.08.2016 inter alia containing a list of the corresponding parties. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant additional evidence production since he appears to have submitted before the learned lower authorities (page 2 para 3 in the CIT(A)’s appellate order) that no details were not available way back in 2012. We thus fail to understand as to how the so called additional evidence pressed by the assessee at this belated stage could be termed as relevant or carrying genuineness once he himself admitted clearly before the Assessing Officer that no such details were available. This additional evidence petition stands rejected therefore.The very course of action follows in the assessee’s first and foremost substantial grievance that Section 68 addition deserves to be deleted once he had not even filed any details of the concerned parties involving varying sums. We thus uphold the impugned Section 68 addition of Rs.1,62,33,155/- in principle. 4. Next comes the latter issue of set-off of the impugned unexplained cash credits from the alleged brought forward losses of earlier years. Learned DR referred Fakir Mohammed Haji Hassan 247 ITR 290 (Guj) that such an income under the had “unexplained” addition does not deserve to be set-off against brought forward losses. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant latter argument in the light of the very hon'ble high court’s ITA No. 47/Coch/2015 Shri K.R. Sureshkumar 3 subsequent decision CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing and Printing Mills (2013) 219 Taxman 279 (Guj) holding that Section 14 of the Act defines all the relevant heads of income including Section 68/69-69C of the Act; which in turn, are liable to be adjusted against brought forward losses as per law. We thus accept the assessee’s instant latter substantial ground in principle and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation allowing his set-off claim subject to this taxpayer filing all the relevant details, in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 19 th December, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 19 th December, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -V, Ernakulam 4. The CIT- Thrissur 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin n.p.