Pooja Fashion , Hyderabad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ,Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 500/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9625 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T. SUNIL GOUTAM
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.500/Hyd/2021 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) M/s. Pooja Fashion, Hyderabad. PAN AATFP2385C Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Hyderabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri T. Sunil Goutam (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 25.01.2022. Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2019-20 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad order dt.23.09.2021 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). None appeared on behalf of assessee. We have heard the learned Department Representative and proceed to pass exparte order. 2 ITA No.500/Hyd/2021 2. It is stated that the only issue in this appeal that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of readymade garments under the name and style of Pooja Fashion. The assessee has filed Return of Income for Assessment Year 2019-20 on 30.10.2019 declaring an income of Rs.1,68,380. The Central Zone Team of Commissioner’s Task Force, Hyderabad approached one Sri Guman Singh Rajpurohit, father of Sri Narayan Singh Rajpurohit, at a shop by name Pooja Fashion at Koti, Hyderabad found cash amounting to Rs.49,31,000/- in the possession of Shri Guman Singh Rajpurohit in the business premises of M/s. Pooja Fashion on 17.10.2018. Shri Guman Singh stated before the task force personnel that the cash was taken by him on behalf of his son Shri Rajpurohit Narayan Singh, who is a partner in the assessee-firm. However, as Shri Guman Singh has not given any satisfactory explanation with regard to the source of cash found, the said cash was ceased by the Police and the information was forwarded to the income tax authorities. Thereafter warrant u/s. 132A(1) was issued on 18.10.2018 and the said cash was deposited into the personal deposit Account No.5055403001 of the Pr. CIT (Central), Hyderabad on 22.10.2018. On receipt of the above information, a Notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. As there was no response from the assessee, a show cause notice 3 ITA No.500/Hyd/2021 dt.10.03.2021 was issued to the assessee providing further opportunity to the assessee. There was no compliance to the show cause notice also, the assessment was completed based on the information available on record. The amount of Rs.49,31,000 is treated as unexplained addition u/s.69A of the Act and assessed total income at Rs.50,99,380. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) inspite of providing many opportunities to the assessee to represent his case. Thereafter, the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal of the assessee on merits after examining the information available on record. On being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “ 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) – 11 erred in both on facts and in law passing the appeal order u/s.250 of the Act. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the order of Assessing Officer passed order under action 143(3) of the Act without giving sufficient opportunity which is against the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.49,31,000 u/s.69A of the Act without considering the explanation given by the assessee which is not justified. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the cash found at business 4 ITA No.500/Hyd/2021 premises was received from the sales proceeds and is duly recorded in the books of account. 5. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee is in business of trading in readymade garments and sales are generally made in cash. 6. Without prejudice to the above, it is requested before the Hon’ble ITAT to allow the appellant one more opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities.” 5. Inspite of issue of notice, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. There is no representation from the assessee's side. 6. The learned departmental representative submitted that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Now even on receipt of the notice, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal nor filed any request for adjournment. The assessee is not showing any interest to pursue the appeal even before the Tribunal. The task force police of Hyderabad ceased cash amounting to Rs.49,31,000. When the police asked the source of money ceased in the premises of the assessee-shop, there was no proper explanation to the police regarding the source of the said cash. Thereafter the task force police informed to the income tax authorities. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer despite issue of notices. Learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition u/s. 69A of the Act. The ld. DR further submitted that on appeal, the CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee and the assessee did not turn up. The CIT(A) confirmed 5 ITA No.500/Hyd/2021 the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the Act. He further submitted that the assessee is not able to explain properly about the seizure of the cash found in the premises of assessee- shop. Therefore the orders passed by the lower authorities should be confirmed. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and carefully considered the material available on record. There is no dispute about the seizure of the cash found in the assessee's business premises. It is an admitt4ed fact that the assessee had not appeared neither before the Assessing Officer, before the CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal. The assessee raised one of the ground that the CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Upon perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it was noticed that the CIT(A) has given many opportunities to the assessee to attend before him and also before the Tribunal. The assessee mentioned that he is running readymade garment shop thereby he received some sale considerations by selling the same. To substantiate his statement, the assessee did not file any cogent evidence or material before the income tax authorities. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the CIT(A) since the assessee did not furnish/place any satisfactory evidence before the A.O./CIT(A) or before us. Therefore we are of the opinion that the order passed by the CIT(A) is liable to be confirmed. The grounds raised by the assessee is devoid of any merit and we confirm the order of CIT(A) and accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 6 ITA No.500/Hyd/2021 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Jan., 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.27.01.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. M/s. Pooja Fashion, No.5-1-815/5,KJ Market, Koti, Hyderabad. 2. ACIT, Central Circle 1(4), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T (Central), Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-11, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.