Jitendra Bandu Bhosale, Kolhapur V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 586/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1746 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , A M . / ITA NO. 586 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE, 1460 - C WARD, GALA NO.7, LAXMIPURI, KOLHAPUR - 416002 . / APPELLANT PAN: A JEPB7494A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1 ( 1 ), KOLHAP UR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 . 0 5 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 . 0 5 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) , KOLHAPUR , DATED 04 . 02 .20 1 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 1 1 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED ON 27.08.2015 . WHEN MR. M.K. KULKARNI , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT , THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 09.11.2015, ON WHICH DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THER EAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 2 14.01.2016 ON WHICH DATE, MR. M.K. KULKARNI WITHDREW HIS VAKALATNAMA. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES FOR APPEARANCE ON 30.03.2016 . NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2016, THE MATTER WAS A GAIN ADJOURNED TO 31.05.2016 AND NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD. THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN RETURNED WITH THE REMARK NOT KNOWN, RETURNED TO SENDER BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT . ON APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 31.05.2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL , WHICH READ AS UNDER : - 1) O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,44,172/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE ACT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BE QUASHED. THE ACT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BE QUASHED. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,15,411/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE HIM. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE ACT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BE QUASHED. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,93,610/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE ACT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BE QUASHED. 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/ - WITHOUT CONSIDERING PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 250(6) OF THE ACT THE ADDITIO N SUSTAINED BE QUASHED. 5) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C I T(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. TO CONSIDER PROPERLY THE FACTUAL POSITION PUT BEFORE HIM. WITHOUT THAT THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE APPEAL ORDER OF THE LD. C I T(A) BE SET ASIDE. 6) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234 B AND 234C, 234D IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEVY OF INTEREST BE QU ASHED. ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 3 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,44,172/ - UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. 5. BRIEFLY , IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,23,340/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS DOCTOR IN MICRO PATHOLOGY AND WAS RUNNING A PATHOLOGY LABORATORY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE VEDANT PATHOLOGY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS , THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH BILLS, VOUCHERS, ETC. FOR VERIFICATION. THOUGH THE CASE WAS FIXED ON VARIOUS DATES, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AT TH E TIME OF HEARING HELD ON 15.03.2013 , THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS, VOUCHERS, ETC. FOR VERIFICATION AND ALSO TO FURNISH ANY FURTHER SUBMISSIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS, VOUCHERS AND ALL RELEVANT RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TRADING ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FULLY RELIABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ALL BANK ACC OUNTS AND ON VERIFICATION OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND ON VERIFICATION OF BANK EXTRACT OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS BANKS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNDE R: - HDFC BANK, BRANCH, LAXMIPUR A/C NO.5810 RS. 18,53,490/ - HDFC BANK, BRANCH, LAXMIPUR A/C NO.1300 RS.39,200 / - HDFC BANK, BRANCH, LAXMIPUR A/C NO.577 RS.3,00,050/ - BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, A/C NO.20159129106 RS. 10,38,000/ - SBI, TREASURY BRANCH A/C NO .95176 RS. 4,00,000/ - TOTAL RS. 36,30,740/ - ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 4 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK BEARING ACCOUNT NO.5810 AND BEARING ACCOUNT NO.577 WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF ALL BANK ACCOUNTS TOGETHER WITH SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS ON AND ABOVE RS.20,000/ - . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BANK ACCOUNTS OTHER THAN ONE STATED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER GAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN ALL THE BANKS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,14,396/ - IN THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND HDFC , WHICH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF ADVANCE, BANK INTEREST , BUSINESS RECEIPTS, MACHINERY ACCOUNT, FD ENCAHSED, BANK DEPOSITS AND SALARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ISSUED LETTER DATED 14.12.2013 UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN HE ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE OF SALE OF MACHINERY. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.45,29,370/ - WAS USED TO DEPOSIT IN VARIOUS ACCOUNTS. THIS AMOUNT INCLUDED RS. 13 LAKHS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES FATHER, RS. 6,19,9 05/ - FROM THE BUSINESS OF HIS SPOUSE SMT. S.J. BHOSALE AND RS. 1,19,512/ - AS CASH FROM MACHINERY SALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER FOR VERIFICATION O N OATH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER FOR RECORDIN G HIS STATEMENT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT RS.13 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER. REGARDING RECEIPT FROM BUSINESS OF HIS SPOUSE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS AND ALSO REGARDING THE MACHINERY SALE, THERE WERE NO DETAILS AS TO WHO PURCHASED THE MACHINERY AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE ONLY STATED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED RS. 1,35,000/ - BY CHEQUE FROM ONE SHRI ASHOK MARUTI PATIL . THE ASSESSING OF FICER VERIFIED THIS FACT AND FOUND THAT ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 5 THE CHEQUE WAS ISSUED BY SHRI NAGESH MAHDIK FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT NERUL, NEW MUMBAI. THE STATEMENT OF WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED, WHO STATED THAT SHE WAS RUNNING A SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRE NEAR TAWADE HOTEL . SHE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LICENCE, ETC. , WHICH SHE PROMISED TO PRODUCE, BUT NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN, BUT THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 15.03.20 13 STATED THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, CONCLUDED THAT IN RESPECT OF TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS. 36,30,740/ - , THE ASSESSEE HAD SOURCE FOR ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,04,105/ - AS PER THE DETAILS ENLISTED AT PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN RESPECT OF BALANCE OF RS. 21,26,635/ - , THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), SAME EXPLANATION AS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), SAME EXPLANATION AS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS MADE AND HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED HIS FATHER BEING A THIRD PARTY TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT , BILL S AND VOUCHERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN COMPLETED AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS ASSESSEE S RESPONSIBILITY T O SUBSTANTIATE ANY CLAIM MADE BY HIM . W HERE HE HAD MADE CLAIM THAT SUM OF RS.13 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER, THEN ONUS WAS UPON HIM TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER FOR EXAMINATION AS HIS WITNESS. ONLY AFTER HE DISCHARGES HIS ONUS, THE BURD EN SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT PROPER NATURAL JUSTICE WAS DONE AND THE ADDITION WAS UPHELD. ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 6 8. AS POINTED OUT BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE US THOUGH SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVING PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, WE FIND NO MERIT IN TH E STAND OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HIS WITNESSES AND ESTABLISH THE SOURCES OF AMOUNT IN TWO SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS WITH HDFC BANK AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. IN THE ABSENCE OF SAM E, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW, COMING TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. AGAINST ADDITION OF 4,15,411/ - , WHICH WAS ALSO MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD STATED THAT RS. 6,19,905/ - WAS OUT OF BUSINESS OF HIS SPOUSE SMT. S.J. BHOSALE. IN HER STATEMENT, SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS RUNNING A SAMPLE COLLECTION BHOSALE. IN HER STATEMENT, SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS RUNNING A SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRE NEAR TAWADE HOTEL. SHE W AS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND LI CENCE, WHICH SHE NEVER PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, MADE CERTAIN ENQUIRIES THROUGH INSPECTOR, WHO REPORTED THAT SHRI MAHESH PATIL, EMPLOYEE AT THE PREMISES SITUATED NEAR TAWADE HOTEL STATED THA T THE PREMISES WAS SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRE OF M/S. VEDANT PATH LAB. HE FURTHER INFORMED THAT HE COLLECTS SAMPLES IN THE PREMISES AND ALSO ON CALL FROM NEARBY HOSPITALS AND CARRY THE SAME TO MAIN OFFICE AT LAXMIPURI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT I N THE AB SENCE OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY HIS SPOUSE, ENTIRE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF SPOUSE OF RS. 5,15,977/ - WAS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPT, EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,51,415/ - WAS CLAIMED. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PROOF REGARDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED, 40% OF TH E SAID ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 7 EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED, WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,00,566/ - AND SUM OF RS. 4,15,411/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 10. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE, WHERE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND LICENCE WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPOR T OF CLAIM THAT THE SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRE WAS BEING RUN BY SPOUSE OF ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE INSPECTORS REPORT ONLY CONTAINED THOSE FACTS WHICH WE RE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND WHERE THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. 11. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE TAKE NOTE OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT HIS WIFE WAS RUNNING A SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRE AT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT HIS WIFE WAS RUNNING A SAMPLE COLLECTION CENTRE AT TAWADE HOTEL . UNDOUBTEDLY, THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED THAT SHE WAS RUNNING THE SAID BUSINESS, BUT WHEN SHE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTI ATE HER CLAIM, SHE FAILED TO DO SO. THE SAID WITNESS IS THAT OF ASSESSEE AND THE ONUS WA S UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE VERACITY OF STATEMENT BY HER. THE REPORT WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WAS VIS - - VIS FACT OF COLLECT I ON OF SAMPLES NEAR TAWADE HOTEL, WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SAID THAT IT WAS A COLLECTION CENTRE OF M/S. VEDANT PATH LAB. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND ADDITION OF RS. 4,15,411/ - IS UPHELD. T HE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, DISMISSED. ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 8 12. NOW, COMING TO THE NEXT ADDITION OF RS.5,93,610/ - UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND IN DISTRICT BELGUM FOR TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS. 5,55,000/ - AND INC LUDING THE OTHER EXPENSES, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT WAS RS. 5,93,610/ - . THE SAID LAND WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY HIS FATHER, BUT IN HIS NAME. THE SAI D LAND WAS CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASED OUT OF HUF FUNDS A ND WAS HUF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER FOR RECORDING OF STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THE FATHER OF ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. ANOTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO HIM TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER FOR VERIFICATION ON OATH, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID INVESTMENT OUT OF HIS INCOME AND TAXED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 1 3. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT SINCE HIS FATHER WAS 1 3. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT SINCE HIS FATHER WAS THIRD PARTY, IT WAS THE DUTY OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUMMON INDEPENDENTLY FOR INTERROGATION. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO EVIDE NCE THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAD INCOME AND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM AND IT WAS PART OF HUF . SINCE THESE FACTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER FOR VERIFICATION AND WHERE HE HAS F AILED TO DO SO, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 14. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A). 15. IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE NOTED WHILE ADDRESSING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BAN K DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE FIRST CLAIMED THAT IT HAD RECEIVE D RS.13 LAKHS FROM HIS FATHER, WHICH WAS CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM. HOWEVER, NO ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 9 EVIDENCE OF THE SOURCE OF CASH WAS PRODUCED NOR THE FATHER WAS PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. SINCE THE CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HIS FATHER VIS - - VIS INVESTMENT IN THE LAND TOTALING RS. 5,93,610/ - ALSO. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS PURCHASED BY HIS F ATHER AND WAS PART OF HUF. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE AND FI LE THE SOURCE OF SAID INVESTMENT AND MERELY STATING THAT IT BELONGS TO THE HUF DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE OF HIS DUTY , WHERE THE ASSET STANDS IN HIS NAME . IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVING DISCHARGED HIS DUTY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, DISMISSED. 16. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES, AGAINST WHICH IT HAD NEITHER PRODUCED ACCOUNT HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES, AGAINST WHICH IT HAD NEITHER PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR ANY BILLS OR VOUCHERS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIM WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. ACCORDINGLY, A N ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - WAS MADE OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US VIS - - VIS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 17. THE GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN NOT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT TO CONSIDER THE FACTUAL POSITION PROPERLY. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVING ESTABLISHED HIS CASE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, ITA NO. 586 /PN/20 1 4 SHRI JITENDRA BANDU BHOSALE 10 IF ANY, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 IS AGAINST CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMIS SED. 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 S T D AY OF MAY , 201 6 . SD , / - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 31 ST MAY , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLA NT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A), KOLHAPUR ; 4. / THE CIT - I / II, KOLHAPUR / CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE