PUSHPARAJ S. SHETTY, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(2)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 511/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2260 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARTI SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH P SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Peak credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 511 /MUM/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 0 6 ) PUSHPARAJ S. SHETTY 4D VIJAY VIHAR CHS LTD. SION TROMBAY ROAD CHEMBUR MUMBAI - 400 071. ITO 22 (2) - 2 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAQPS5902B ASSESSEE BY SHRI HITESH P. SHAH DEPARTMENT BY MS. BHARTI SINGH DATE OF HEARING 2 7 .10 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 .10. 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2011 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 33, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, WHEREIN HE HAS PARTIALLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. WE HEARD THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF A PERSON NAMED SHRI PRASHANT C UPDIKAR, IT WAS NOTICED THAT HE WAS ACTING AS AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. THE ABOVE SAID PERSON WAS HAVING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH UTI BANK , WHEREIN CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.32,47,635/ - WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE. WHEN ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS COLLECTIONS MADE ON BOOKING OF TICKETS ON BEHALF OF M/S SADANAND CARRIERS / SOUTHERN TOURISTS , BEING THE CONCERNS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. WHEN . 2 HIS STATEMENT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE, HE ALSO AGREED TO IT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF TH E CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE ABOVE SAID BANK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THOSE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THEY HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE PLEA THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED DURING THE FLOODS. HENCE THE AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MADE VERY SAME SUBMISSIONS. THE LD CIT(A) EXAMINED THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. HE NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NAME OF SHRI PRASHANT C UPDIKAR ALSO DID NOT FIND PLACE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PRASH ANT WAS COLLECTING OCTROI AND OTHER EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY SPENT. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI PRASHANT WAS SHOWING NIL BALANCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID CLAIM, THE L D CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTIONS. THE LD CIT(A) EXAMINED THE BANK ACCOUNT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY HE COMPUTED THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE AS RS.6,01,040/ - AND DIR ECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY HE GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTS BUSINESS COLLECTIONS AND THEY HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE SAID CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN PROVED WITH EVIDENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY REJECTED THE SAME. . 3 5. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDES PERSONAL LOAN OF RS.6.00 LAKHS RAISED BY THE AGENT OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., SHRI PRASHANT C UPDIKAR THROUGH CHEQUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE SAID CHEQUE AMOUNT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED WHILE WORKING OUT PEAK CREDIT BALANCE. ACCORDING LY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND AND FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 6. WHEN A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIM OF LOAN RECEIPT OF RS.6.00 LAKHS COULD BE ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF LOAN DOCUMENTS, THE LD A.R FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE COPIES OF LOAN DOCUMENTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM MADE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE DECLINE TO ADMIT THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT WORKED OUT BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 7 .10 .2016 . SD/ - SD/ - (PAWAN SINGH) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 2 7 / 10 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESP ONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI . 4 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS