MANOJ R. MAHESHWARI, MUMBAI V. ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4889/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4299 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN VP LD DR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.4889/MUM/2014 MANOJ R. MAHESHWARI ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM I.T.A. NO.4889/MUM/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) MANOJ R. MAHESHWARI 318/319, TARDEO AC MARKET TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI-400 007 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 16(1)(4) MATRU MANDIR, 2 ND FLOOR MUMBAI-400 007 ! ' PAN/GIR NO. ACAPM-7018-E ( !# APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : NONE RE VENUE BY : ASGHAR ZAIN VP , LD. DR & DATE OF HEARING : 27/09/2018 '() / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/10/2018 O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2008-09 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-28 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-28/ITO-16(1)(4)/2013-14 DATED 14/03/2014 QUA CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER- ITA NO.4889/MUM/2014 MANOJ R. MAHESHWARI ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 2 16(1)(4), MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ON 31/12/2010 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN DETERMINED AT RS.69.85 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANC ES AS AGAINST NIL RETURN E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15/03/2009. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE AND NO VALID ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION IS ON RECORD. THE NOTICE SENT AT THE AD DRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 HAS RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE ORDER SHEET EN TRIES REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER APPEARED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO DEFEND HIS CASE. LEFT WITH NO OPTION, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE-OFF THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN WHO HAS JUSTIFIED THE STAND OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITIONS / DISALLOW ANCES. 3. THE FACT ON RECORD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEIN G RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS PROPRIETOR OF M/S MANOJ CAR RENTALS AND M/S ANCHOR FASTENERS MANUFACTURING CORP. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE REQUISITE DETAILS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED THE LD. AO TO MAKE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES AGGREGATING TO RS.2,91,121/- AGAINST VARIOUS EXPEND ITURE LIKE FUEL EXPENSES, INTEREST EXPENSE, PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES, TRAVELLING, TELEPHONE, BUSINESS PROMOTION ETC. FURTHER, THE PERUSAL OF RECORD REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT OF RS.63.96 LACS ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES WHICH WAS TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHO UT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/03/2 014 WHEREIN THE ITA NO.4889/MUM/2014 MANOJ R. MAHESHWARI ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 3 ASSESSEE AGAIN REMAINED NON-COMPLIANT. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT AGAINST CAPITAL GAINS WORKINGS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, EVEN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH LED THE LD. CIT(A ) TO CONFIRM HE STAND OF LD. AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO WORK OUT THE NET RESULT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WI TH ANY DEGREE OF RELIABILITY AND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS WORKING WITH COGENT EV IDENCES. HENCE THE WORKING GIVEN BY HIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT THE RESULT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WAS, AS IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL. THE FIGURES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT AND ADO PTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE AO. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO .3 IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING SUBSTANTIA L TO SUPPORT THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF FUEL EXPENSES AND DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OWN ANY CAR, DOES NOT PROVE THAT ALL FUEL EXPEN SES CLAIMED ARE CORRECT AND FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY. ON THE CONTRARY, SINCE THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OWN ANY CAR HIMSELF, IT IS IMPLIED THAT HE WOULD BE USING BUSIN ESS VEHICLES FOR HIS PERSONAL WORK. IT WILL BE TOO FARFETCHED TO CLAIM THAT THE APPELLA NT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MOVE ABOUT ON PERSONAL WORK/LEISURE. IN ANY CASE FUEL EXPENSES WERE PARTLY DISALLOWED AS MOST EXPENSES WERE FOUND TO BE INCURRED IN CASH, BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 THEREFORE LACKS MERIT AND IS DISMISSED. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES, THE NE ED FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO SISTER CONCERN, IS NOT BACKED BY ANY CO GENT EVIDENCE. HENCE IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO BE CORRECT. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS ALSO DISMISSED CONSEQUENTLY. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX, WE DO NOT FIND EVEN SLIGHTEST REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE STAND OF FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE COMPLETE ONUS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRANSACTIONS WAS ON ASSESSEE, WHICH HE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE DETAILS BEFORE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND EVEN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME IS SITUATION BEFORE US WHERE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REMAINED NEGLIGENT TO ATTEND THE H EARING. THEREFORE, FINDING NO SUBSTANCE IN THE APPEAL, WE DISMISS THE SAME. ITA NO.4889/MUM/2014 MANOJ R. MAHESHWARI ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 4 6. THE APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *& MUMBAI; DATED :10.10.2018 SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$ - -) *& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 & GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, # '$% (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) *& / ITAT, MUMBAI