SALIM IBRAHIMBAI JAKA, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CNETRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5147/MUM/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income by the Assessing Officer following a search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The search, conducted on 17.12.2014, led to the seizure of documents indicating unaccounted expenses. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 153A and 142(1) of the Act, to which the assessee failed to comply adequately. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 20,23,260 to the assessee's income, which was upheld by the CIT(A) and later by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the non-compliance of the assessee and the procedural correctness followed by the tax authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123649 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Banarsi Das Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Loose papers; Document seized; Accommodation entries; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 143(2); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5147/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, 2 nd floor, Malhotra House, Office No. 1 Opp. GPO Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle- 3(3), Room No. 1923, 19 th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN No. ABPPJ 5700 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 01/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 22/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the act the Learned Assessing Officer in passing an Assessment Order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no effective notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.1961 and accordingly Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A is bad in law. 3. On the facts and Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition Rs.20,23,260/ miscellaneous cash expenses, without considering the circumstances of the case. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in this case search action u/s 132 of the Income was carried out on 17.12.2014 along with search in the case of IB Commercial Ltd. Subsequentl issued in the assessment years involved in search period. However, no compliance was made by the assessee and therefore, subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income, ba 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the act the Learned Assessing Officer in passing an Assessment Order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no effective notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.1961 and accordingly Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A is bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition Rs.20,23,260/- on account of alleged unaccounted miscellaneous cash expenses, without considering the circumstances of the case. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in this case search action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 17.12.2014 along with search in the case of IB Commercial Ltd. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued in the assessment years involved in search period. However, no compliance was made by the assessee and therefore, subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to file return of income, balance sheet profit and Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in passing an Assessment Order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was no effective notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.1961 and accordingly Assessment Order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition on account of alleged unaccounted miscellaneous cash expenses, without considering the facts Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in this case search tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on 17.12.2014 along with search in the case of IB y, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued in the assessment years involved in search period. However, no compliance was made by the assessee and therefore, subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the lance sheet profit and loss account, audit report etc. no compliance was made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in view of document seized in the course of search made addition for the cash deposit of Rs.20,23,260/- found during the course of search. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the objection challenging validity of the assessment as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 4. None attended on and therefore appeal was heard ex hearing the arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). 5. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, therefore dismissed as infructuous. 6. Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is concerned the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5.1 It is noted that the return of income of the assessee us. 139(1), for the relevant year was due on 31.07.2015 and was extended to 31.08.2015 by CBDT was not filed by the assessee even by 01.06.2016 which is account, audit report etc. no compliance was made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in view of document seized in the course of search made addition for the cash deposit of found during the course of search. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the objection challenging validity of the assessment as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. None attended on behalf of the assessee despite notifying and therefore appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative Ground No. 1 is general in nature, therefore dismissed as No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is concerned the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 5.1 It is noted that the return of income of the assessee us. 139(1), for the relevant year was due on 31.07.2015 and was extended to 31.08.2015 by CBDT. However, the same was not filed by the assessee even by 01.06.2016 which is Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 3 account, audit report etc. no compliance was made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in view of document seized in the course of search made addition for the cash deposit of On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the objection challenging validity of the assessment as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by behalf of the assessee despite notifying parte qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative Ground No. 1 is general in nature, therefore dismissed as No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is concerned the 5.1 It is noted that the return of income of the assessee us. 139(1), for the relevant year was due on 31.07.2015 and . However, the same was not filed by the assessee even by 01.06.2016 which is the date of the n response to the said notice calling for the return to be filed within 30 days, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. In fact, only as late as 07.11.2016, which is after a lapse of 5 months from the date of issue of notice us. 153A, the assessee submitted the copy of the return of income etc. in Tapal. The notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.1 scrutiny and notices u/s submission of the details/information in connection with the search related assessment. In view of such a factual scenario, the presumption of the assessee that t notice us 142(1) was issued by the AO calling for his return of income itself is erroneous. This is more so considering that the assessment proceedings in this case are related to the search action and are not regular assessment proceedings for which notices us 142(1) are issued not only for submission of the details/information but also for submission of the return of income u/s 139. It is also noted that the assessee has neither filed any return of income for the relevant year us. 139 nor us. 153A of the prescribed time period. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the action of the AO and the contention of the assessee is rejected. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are dismissed.” 6.1 We find that assessee has not and therefore, there was 142(1) of the Act. The ground raised by the assessee is therefore rejected. the date of the notice us. 153A issued by the AO. Even in response to the said notice us. 153A dated 01.06.2016 calling for the return to be filed within 30 days, there was no mpliance on the part of the assessee. In fact, only as late as 07.11.2016, which is after a lapse of 5 months from the date of issue of notice us. 153A, the assessee submitted the copy of the return of income etc. in Tapal. The notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.10.2016 was issued selecting the case for scrutiny and notices u/s 742(1) were issued only for submission of the details/information in connection with the search related assessment. In view of such a factual scenario, the presumption of the assessee that t notice us 142(1) was issued by the AO calling for his return of income itself is erroneous. This is more so considering that the assessment proceedings in this case are related to the search action and are not regular assessment proceedings ch notices us 142(1) are issued not only for submission of the details/information but also for submission of the return of income u/s 139. It is also noted that the assessee has neither filed any return of income for the relevant year us. 139 nor us. 153A even after the expiry of the prescribed time period. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the action of the AO and the contention of the assessee is rejected. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are We find that assessee has not filed any return of income , there was no requirement issue of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The ground raised by the assessee is therefore Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 4 otice us. 153A issued by the AO. Even in us. 153A dated 01.06.2016 calling for the return to be filed within 30 days, there was no mpliance on the part of the assessee. In fact, only as late as 07.11.2016, which is after a lapse of 5 months from the date of issue of notice us. 153A, the assessee submitted the copy of the return of income etc. in Tapal. The notice u/s 0.2016 was issued selecting the case for 742(1) were issued only for submission of the details/information in connection with the search related assessment. In view of such a factual scenario, the presumption of the assessee that the said notice us 142(1) was issued by the AO calling for his return of income itself is erroneous. This is more so considering that the assessment proceedings in this case are related to the search action and are not regular assessment proceedings ch notices us 142(1) are issued not only for submission of the details/information but also for submission of the return of income u/s 139. It is also noted that the assessee has neither filed any return of income for even after the expiry of the prescribed time period. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the action of the AO and the contention of the assessee is rejected. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the appeal are filed any return of income no requirement issue of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The ground raised by the assessee is therefore 7. Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee relates to addition of Rs.20,23,260/ finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “6. Ground No 4 of the appeal relates to the merit of the addition made by the AO of Rs 20,23,260/ unaccounted miscellaneous cash expenses incurred by the assessee as per the documents seized in course of the search action: As noted earlier, a se carried out in the case of M/s. I.B Commercial Ltd. and our assessee being a related person, was also covered in the said search. Notice us. 153A was duly issued on 01.06.2016 and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did no comply to the said notice nor requested for any adjournment. Further, notice us. 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee requesting for submission of copy of return of income, Balance sheet, P&L Alc.. Audit Report etc. Again, there was no compliance statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 18.10.2016 were issued and served on the assessee. On the said notices also, there was no compliance Finally, on 07.11.2016, the assessee filed the primary details in Tapa return of income. In course of the assessment proceedings, the A noted that as per the documents seized in course of the searcn action, the assessee has incurred unaccounted miscellaneous expenses on purchase of jewellery, security expenses cash deposits etc. of Rs. 20,23,260/ the AO issued a final show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the said amount of Rs. 20,23,260/ related to the unaccounted cash expenditure as per the Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee relates to addition of Rs.20,23,260/- for deposit of cash expenses. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 6. Ground No 4 of the appeal relates to the merit of the addition made by the AO of Rs 20,23,260/- unaccounted miscellaneous cash expenses incurred by the assessee as per the documents seized in course of the search action: As noted earlier, a search action us. 132 was carried out in the case of M/s. I.B Commercial Ltd. and our assessee being a related person, was also covered in the said search. Notice us. 153A was duly issued on 01.06.2016 and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did no comply to the said notice nor requested for any adjournment. Further, notice us. 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee requesting for submission of copy of return of income, Balance sheet, P&L Alc.. Audit Report etc. Again, there was no compliance from the assessee's side Thereafter, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 18.10.2016 were issued and served on the assessee. On the said notices also, there was no compliance Finally, on 07.11.2016, the assessee filed the primary details in Tapal including the return of income. In course of the assessment proceedings, the A noted that as per the documents seized in course of the searcn action, the assessee has incurred unaccounted miscellaneous expenses on purchase of jewellery, security cash deposits etc. of Rs. 20,23,260/-. Therefore, the AO issued a final show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the said amount of Rs. 20,23,260/ related to the unaccounted cash expenditure as per the Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 5 Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee relates to osit of cash expenses. The 6. Ground No 4 of the appeal relates to the merit of the - being the unaccounted miscellaneous cash expenses incurred by the assessee as per the documents seized in course of the arch action us. 132 was carried out in the case of M/s. I.B Commercial Ltd. and our assessee being a related person, was also covered in the said search. Notice us. 153A was duly issued on 01.06.2016 and served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not comply to the said notice nor requested for any adjournment. Further, notice us. 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee requesting for submission of copy of return of income, Balance sheet, P&L Alc.. Audit Report etc. Again, from the assessee's side Thereafter, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 18.10.2016 were issued and served on the assessee. On the said notices also, there was no compliance Finally, on 07.11.2016, the l including the return of income. In course of the assessment proceedings, the A noted that as per the documents seized in course of the searcn action, the assessee has incurred unaccounted miscellaneous expenses on purchase of jewellery, security . Therefore, the AO issued a final show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the said amount of Rs. 20,23,260/- related to the unaccounted cash expenditure as per the seized documents should not be adde Since, the assessee was not complying to the statutory notices, this final show cause notice was also accompanied with the summons. However, to this final show cause notice also, there was no compliance The AO, therefore, proceeded to add the said amount of Rs. 20,23,260/ of the assessee. 6.1 In the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee made the following written submissions. Ground No-4: "The Leamed Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition Rs expenses without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. At the outset we would like to submit that the Ld. AO has made the addition by stating as follows "As per Appraisal Report at page no. 118 at para summary of unaccounted cash expenses/ withdrawals/ payments/ accommodation entries made by the assessee. A summary made on the basis of the entries of cash payments/expenses made by the assessee group as found in the loose paper/doc search. The same is inventorized as Annexure Appraisal Report. However, while doing so, the AO has merely stated in his order that since appraisal report mentioned a summary of expenses/ withdrawals etc., the added in the hands of the appellant. However, this so called seized documents should not be added to his total income. Since, the assessee was not complying to the statutory notices, this final show cause notice was also accompanied with the summons. However, to this final show cause notice also, there was no compliance The AO, therefore, proceeded o add the said amount of Rs. 20,23,260/- to the total income of the assessee. 6.1 In the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee made the following written submissions. 4: "The Leamed Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition Rs 20,23, 260/-on account of miscellaneous expenses without considering the facts & circumstances of At the outset we would like to submit that the Ld. AO has made the addition by stating as follows "As per Appraisal Report at page no. 118 at para no. 6.12, regarding the summary of unaccounted cash expenses/ withdrawals/ payments/ accommodation entries made by the assessee. A summary made on the basis of the entries of cash payments/expenses made by the assessee group as found in the loose paper/documents found and seized during the search. The same is inventorized as Annexure Appraisal Report. However, while doing so, the AO has merely stated in his order that since appraisal report mentioned a summary of expenses/ withdrawals etc., the same is required to be added in the hands of the appellant. However, this so called Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 6 d to his total income. Since, the assessee was not complying to the statutory notices, this final show cause notice was also accompanied with the summons. However, to this final show cause notice also, there was no compliance The AO, therefore, proceeded to the total income 6.1 In the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee "The Leamed Assessing Officer has erred in making an on account of miscellaneous expenses without considering the facts & circumstances of At the outset we would like to submit that the Ld. AO has made the addition by stating as follows "As per Appraisal no. 6.12, regarding the summary of unaccounted cash expenses/ withdrawals/ payments/ accommodation entries made by the assessee. A summary made on the basis of the entries of cash payments/expenses made by the assessee group as found uments found and seized during the search. The same is inventorized as Annexure-XIlI to the However, while doing so, the AO has merely stated in his order that since appraisal report mentioned a summary of same is required to be added in the hands of the appellant. However, this so called "appraisal report" has never been confronted to the appellant by the AO. The contents of such "Appraisal Report" are completely unverified and by the appellant no has ever been given to the appellant to rebut the contents of this so called appraisal report. Such a high the part of the department is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and is completely bad in law. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on any such appraisal report, unless the same had been confronted to the assessee Furthermore, it is important to mention here that the appraisal report is merely an internal document of the department. It is a report department to another. To say that such a report constitutes any evidence against the appellant is completely absurd and bad in law. If such an approach was permitted by law, the result would be that one wing of the inc would issue internal reports to another wing and hundreds of crores of rupees could be bought to tax on the basis of such "evidences". Thus, the contention of the AO that the appellant had incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 20.23.260/- department without any external evidences whatsoever is completely bad in law. upon the "the loose papers found during the course proceedings expenses/withdrawals/payments/accommodation entries made by the assessee" and relying upon the same, he has proceeded to make the addition. However, the Ld. AO has failed to prove that how such a conclusion was drawn based on the seized documents. The AO has not gi correlation between the seized papers and the ultimate "appraisal report" has never been confronted to the appellant by the AO. The contents of such "Appraisal Report" are completely unverified and by the appellant no has ever been given to the appellant to rebut the contents of this so called appraisal report. Such a high-handed action on the part of the department is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and is completely bad in law. herefore, no reliance could be placed on any such appraisal report, unless the same had been confronted to the assessee Furthermore, it is important to mention here that the appraisal report is merely an internal document of the department. It is a report issued by one vertical of income tax department to another. To say that such a report constitutes any evidence against the appellant is completely absurd and bad in law. If such an approach was permitted by law, the result would be that one wing of the income tax department would issue internal reports to another wing and hundreds of crores of rupees could be bought to tax on the basis of such "evidences". Thus, the contention of the AO that the appellant had incurred expenses amounting to Rs. on the basis of an internal report of the department without any external evidences whatsoever is completely bad in law. Furthermore, the Ld. AO has stressed upon the "the loose papers found during the course reveals unaccounted withdrawals/payments/accommodation entries made by the assessee" and relying upon the same, he has proceeded to make the addition. However, the Ld. AO has failed to prove that how such a conclusion was drawn based on the seized documents. The AO has not gi correlation between the seized papers and the ultimate Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 7 "appraisal report" has never been confronted to the appellant by the AO. The contents of such "Appraisal Report" are completely unverified and by the appellant no opportunity has ever been given to the appellant to rebut the contents of handed action on the part of the department is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and is completely bad in law. herefore, no reliance could be placed on any such appraisal report, unless the same had been confronted to the assessee Furthermore, it is important to mention here that the appraisal report is merely an internal document of the issued by one vertical of income tax department to another. To say that such a report constitutes any evidence against the appellant is completely absurd and bad in law. If such an approach was permitted by law, the ome tax department would issue internal reports to another wing and hundreds of crores of rupees could be bought to tax on the basis of such "evidences". Thus, the contention of the AO that the appellant had incurred expenses amounting to Rs. n the basis of an internal report of the department without any external evidences whatsoever is Furthermore, the Ld. AO has stressed upon the "the loose papers found during the course search unaccounted withdrawals/payments/accommodation entries made by the assessee" and relying upon the same, he has proceeded to make the addition. However, the Ld. AO has failed to prove that how such a conclusion was drawn based on the seized documents. The AO has not given any correlation between the seized papers and the ultimate conclusion drawn by him. Thus, the addition made on the basis of such so called impounded documents is baseless and cannot be sustained Further and without prejudice to the above, we would als like to submit that the AO has provided no basis whatsoever during the course of assessment proceedings or in the assessment order while making the said addition and has erred in passing a non speaking order that means The order should stand the test of legality. faimess and reason at all the higher appellate forums. That is, the order should contain all the details of the issue, clear findings and a reasoned order. It is a well decided j every order passed by an AO must be a speaking order. With regards to the same we would like to rely on the following case law: Banarsi Das Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 7 March, 1996: 3. Although the impugned on various grounds, we are of the opinion that the same is liable to be quashed on the short ground it does not contain reasons. There can be no manner of doubt that while deciding the appeal the Higher Level Screening Com acts as a quasi judicial authority and it is duty bond to record reasons in support of its decision. The recording of reasons and communication thereof is imperative for compliance of the principles of natural justice which must inform the proceedin in the absence of a statutory provision or administrative instructions requiring recording of reasons in support of the conclusion drawn by him. Thus, the addition made on the basis of such so called impounded documents is baseless and cannot be sustained. Further and without prejudice to the above, we would als like to submit that the AO has provided no basis whatsoever during the course of assessment proceedings or in the assessment order while making the said addition and has erred in passing a non-speaking order. An order must be a speaking order that means an order must speaks for itself. The order should stand the test of legality. faimess and reason at all the higher appellate forums. That is, the order should contain all the details of the issue, clear findings and a reasoned order. It is a well decided judicial principle that every order passed by an AO must be a speaking order. With regards to the same we would like to rely on the following Banarsi Das Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 7 March, 1996: 3. Although the impugned order/notice has been challenged on various grounds, we are of the opinion that the same is liable to be quashed on the short ground it does not contain reasons. There can be no manner of doubt that while deciding the appeal the Higher Level Screening Com acts as a quasi judicial authority and it is duty bond to record reasons in support of its decision. The recording of reasons and communication thereof is imperative for compliance of the principles of natural justice which must inform the proceedings of every quasi judicial body and even in the absence of a statutory provision or administrative instructions requiring recording of reasons in support of the Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 8 conclusion drawn by him. Thus, the addition made on the basis of such so called impounded documents is baseless Further and without prejudice to the above, we would also like to submit that the AO has provided no basis whatsoever during the course of assessment proceedings or in the assessment order while making the said addition and has speaking order. An order must be a an order must speaks for itself. The order should stand the test of legality. faimess and reason at all the higher appellate forums. That is, the order should contain all the details of the issue, clear findings and udicial principle that every order passed by an AO must be a speaking order. With regards to the same we would like to rely on the following Banarsi Das Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs State Of Haryana And order/notice has been challenged on various grounds, we are of the opinion that the same is liable to be quashed on the short ground it does not contain reasons. There can be no manner of doubt that while deciding the appeal the Higher Level Screening Committee acts as a quasi judicial authority and it is duty bond to record reasons in support of its decision. The recording of reasons and communication thereof is imperative for compliance of the principles of natural justice which must gs of every quasi judicial body and even in the absence of a statutory provision or administrative instructions requiring recording of reasons in support of the orders, the quasi judicial authority must pass speaking orders so as to stand the test of scrut Thus the Ld. AO has not elaborated on what basis has the addition been made by him. The assessment order was cryptic in nature and therefore any addition made on the basis of the same is bad in law. 6.2 The assessee has disputed the action of the AO making the said addition primarily on the ground that the evidences relied upon were not confronted to him prior to making the said addition of Rs. 20,23,260/ earlier, there was complete non assessee in the proce The assessee complied to the notice us. 153A calling for the return of income only after a lapse of around 5 months. Further, even the original return of income u/s. 139(1) was not filed by the assessee long after the e date. Moreover, the assessee also failed to respond to the final show cause notice issued accompanied by summons as to why an addition of Rs. 20,23,260/ being the unaccounted miscellaneous expenditure incurred by the assessee as per the documents seized in course of the search action. the AO of making the said addition of Rs. 20.23,260/ Accordingly, Ground No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed. 7.1 Before us, also no evidenc has been filed and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. orders, the quasi judicial authority must pass speaking orders so as to stand the test of scrutiny." Thus the Ld. AO has not elaborated on what basis has the addition been made by him. The assessment order was cryptic in nature and therefore any addition made on the basis of the same is bad in law. The assessee has disputed the action of the AO making the said addition primarily on the ground that the evidences relied upon were not confronted to him prior to making the said addition of Rs. 20,23,260/-. As noted earlier, there was complete non-compliance on the part of the assessee in the proceedings initiated by the AO us. 153A. The assessee complied to the notice us. 153A calling for the return of income only after a lapse of around 5 months. Further, even the original return of income u/s. 139(1) was not filed by the assessee long after the expiry of the due date. Moreover, the assessee also failed to respond to the final show cause notice issued accompanied by summons as to why an addition of Rs. 20,23,260/-should not be made being the unaccounted miscellaneous expenditure incurred essee as per the documents seized in course of the search action. Therefore, no infirmity is found in the action of the AO of making the said addition of Rs. 20.23,260/ Accordingly, Ground No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed. Before us, also no evidence in support of source of the cash has been filed and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 9 orders, the quasi judicial authority must pass speaking Thus the Ld. AO has not elaborated on what basis has the addition been made by him. The assessment order was cryptic in nature and therefore any addition made on the The assessee has disputed the action of the AO of making the said addition primarily on the ground that the evidences relied upon were not confronted to him prior to . As noted compliance on the part of the edings initiated by the AO us. 153A. The assessee complied to the notice us. 153A calling for the return of income only after a lapse of around 5 months. Further, even the original return of income u/s. 139(1) was xpiry of the due date. Moreover, the assessee also failed to respond to the final show cause notice issued accompanied by summons as should not be made being the unaccounted miscellaneous expenditure incurred essee as per the documents seized in course of the Therefore, no infirmity is found in the action of the AO of making the said addition of Rs. 20.23,260/-. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed.” e in support of source of the cash has been filed and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the Thus, ground of 8. In the result, the appeal filed by Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) 1963 on 22/12/2022. Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 22/12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, /12/2022. Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Salim Ibrahim Jaka ITA No. 5147/M/2019 10 the assessee is dismissed. of the ITAT Rules, Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai