SANDIP SALVE, THANE V. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4863/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5552 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 131; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JM) AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) ITA NO. 4863/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 & ITA NO. 4864/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI SANDIP SALVE, 206, ANSUYA BHAVAN, ROAD NO. 6, KISAN NAGAR-2, THANE (WEST)-400604 PAN: ALJPS2588P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(3)(3), (PRE-RESTRUCTURING), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI - 400051 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI V. JUSTIN (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 27 /06 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/07/201 8 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST COMMON ORDER DATED 16.02.2015 OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2 006-07. 2. WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT AT THE TIME WHEN T HE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH NEITHER THE ASS ESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT TO ATTEND THE HEARING NOR ANY LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS 2 ITA NO.6958/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 FIXED ON 30 TH MAY, 2017 AND THEREAFTER ADJOURNMENT TO 29.09.2017, 06.12.2017. ON 06.12.2017 HEARING WAS F INALLY FIXED FOR 07.05.2018. ON THE SAID DATE EVEN THERE WAS NO ONE TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE HEARING. WE, THER EFORE, DECIDING THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,76,16,387/- IN AY 2005-06 AND RS. 1,05,21,643/- IN AY 2006-07 BY CIT(A) AS MADE B Y THE AO BY TREATING THE FULL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CHEQUE D ISCOUNTING BUSINESS AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF UNEX PLAINED CREDIT. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM DCP, ACB, MUMBAI REGARDING HUGE DE POSITS OF CASH IN KALLPPANNA AWADE ICHALKARANJI JANTA SEHKAR I. DURING THE INVESTIGATION, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MUMBAI, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNTS OPENED WHICH W ERE OF SUSPICIOUS NATURE INTENDED FOR DIVERSION OF FUNDS A ND ONE SUCH ACCOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH NOTICES U/S 143 (2 ) AND 142 (1) OF THE ACT AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SEVERAL N OTICES AND DATE OF HEARINGS REMAINED UNATTENDED. IN THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BOOK AND BANK SUMMARY FOR 3 ITA NO.6958/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 THE PERIOD SINCE FROM 1 ST APRIL 2004 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2005. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EX PLAIN CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 333 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,76,16 ,387/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RESPOND THE SAID NO TICE. THEREAFTER THE SAME WAS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 08.03.2013 WHICH WAS COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE BY PERSONALLY ATTENDING ON THE SAID DATE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS AS FROM WHOM AND TO WHOM THE CHEQUES RECEIVED OR GIVEN. THEREAFTER THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. FINALLY, THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE SAID BANK WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE NORMAL PATTERN TRANSAC TIONS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE RETUR NED INCOME AND ALSO THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN VARIANCE TO N ORMAL PATTERNS OF CHEQUES TRANSACTIONS IN THE DISCOUNTING BUSINES S. THE CIT (A) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN T HE NAMES AND ADDRESS TO WHOM THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED AND SOURCES FROM WHICH CHEQUES/ CASH WERE RECEIVED AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. ULTIMATELY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSE D WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS. 4 ITA NO.6958/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT THE PA TTERN OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS SUSPICIOUS IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS TO NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED AND TO WHOM CHEQUES WE RE ISSUED. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HAS PASSED THE O RDER ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL OF THE RECORDS AND A FTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTIONS AND DEFENSES AS PUT UP BY T HE ASSESSEE AND ONLY THEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMI SSED. NOW, THERE IS NO MATERIAL/EVIDENCES ARE BEFORE US TO TAK E A CONTRARY VIEW THAN THAT OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. A CCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BY UPHOLDING TH E ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.07.2018. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 24/07/2018 A.K. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 5 ITA NO.6958/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 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