ANSAR AHMED ALI AHMED KHAN, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5408/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9427 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K CHATURVEDI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5408 / MUM . /2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 10 ) ANSAR AHMED ALI AHMED KHAN SHOP NO.3, ABDULLA MANSION ZAKARIA MASJID STREET S.V.P. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 009 PAN AIMPK3465A . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3)(1), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESS EE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. CHATURVEDI DATE OF HEARING 27.06.2019 DATE OF ORDER 05.07.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 2 ND MAY 2017 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 40 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 10 . 2 . WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. EVEN , THE ASSESSEE HAS 2 ANSAR AHMED ALI AHMED KHAN NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID , WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3 . THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFINED TO THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKH AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ). 4 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE , AN INDIVIDUAL , IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AND TOUR AGENT AND DRY CLEANING AND WASHING. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23 RD JULY 2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,18,460. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH BANK STATEMENT, HOWEVER, HE DID NOT DO SO. THEREFORE, INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT FROM DCB LTD. I N RESP ONSE TO THE QUER Y RAISED, THE DCB BANK LTD. FURNISHED THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 34.75 LAKH IN THE ACCOUNT HELD IN THE BANK. TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER ADDED BACK TO THE 3 ANSAR AHMED ALI AHMED KHAN INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. FURTHER, ON THE BASIS OF A I R INFORMATION, HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 80,96,500. AFTER PERUSING THE SALE DEED FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE STAMP DUTY AMOUNTS TO ` 66,45,542. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE PROPERTY IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT IS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNT WITH THE DCB BANK LTD, HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF ` 26.95 LAKH TO THE SELLER. THUS, GIVING CRE DIT TO THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE COST PRICE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF ` 39,50,552. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRY. AFTER PERUSING THE REMAND REPORT AND OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , THOUGH , GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS T HE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, HOWEVER, HE ENHANCED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TO ` 60 LAKH. 4 ANSAR AHMED ALI AHMED KHAN 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD , BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN , IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE NECESSARY DETAILS. WHEREAS, BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS AND FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND FURNISH A REPORT. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE EXTENSIVE ENQUIRY AND FURNISHED HIS REPORT ON THE DISPUTED ADDITIONS. AFTER PERUSING THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALL OTHER MAT ERIALS ON RECORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKH INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY REMAINS UNEXPLAINED , THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN SOURCED FROM LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 60 LAKH. THE AFORESAID FACTUAL FINDING OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CONTRARY. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE DECISION 5 ANSAR AHMED ALI AHMED KHAN OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 05.07.2019 SD/ - G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05.07.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI