PRADEEP KRIPLANI, MUMBAI V. ITO (IT)- 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5968/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8058 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHARM VEER SINGH
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5968/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Pradeep Kriplani 13, Velani Bhuvan S.L. Road, Mulund (W) Mumbai - 400080 PAN: DOZPK3245F v. Income Tax Officer (IT)-3(1)(1) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Dharmveer Singh Date of Hearing : 24.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 31.05.2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in his appeal: - “1. Addition of income as unexplained Investment treated as income from Other Sources. 2 ITA NO. 5968/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Pradeep Kriplani On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the learned CIT (A) 57 erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 77,18,100. as Unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Income from Other Sources wherein addition made on the basis of only information received from DDIT (investigation), Unit-4(1), Mumbai and merely on the basis of assumption without application of his mind. a. The appellant is an NRI having no Income arising in India, and hence he had not filed the return of income for the above said Assessment Year. b. The Assessing Officer made addition merely on suspicion and assumption of facts, which cannot take place in legal parlance. It is thus a case of no evidence for making the additions and therefore such addition so made without any evidence and proof be “deleted" c. However, CIT has confirmed the addition without any confirming statement or cross-examination with Mr. Subodh Runwal. d. The findings of the Assessing Officer would show that he has assumed certain facts which are not on record or that the same are not supported by any material on record. The Assessing Officer has not brought sufficient and cogent material /evidence against the Assessee to prove that Assessee made payment of ‘on_ money’ in cash over and above the consideration. And order itself contain that addition made merely on assumption. e. The Appellant therefore prays that this addition of Rs.77,18,100/- shall be deleted.” 3. We observed from the record that the hearing was posted since 16.09.2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee until today except on 16.01.2020 a letter was filed for adjournment. The hearing was posted 13 times and none appeared. We deem it fit and proper to proceed to dispose off the appeal as it is pending from 2018. The bench has issued notice by 3 ITA NO. 5968/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Pradeep Kriplani RPAD on 16.11.2021 and 05.01.2022 which was returned unserved. Since the assessee has not appeared in spite of the several notices, we dispose off this appeal on merits after hearing the Ld.DR. 4. Ld. DR briefly explained the facts and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. Heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record, orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “6. Decision: I have gone through the assessment order and submission made during the course of appellate proceedings which are already produced in above paras. It is pertinent to look into this aspect with regard to submissions made by the appellant and also look into the reasons for reopening the assessment and additions made u/s. 69 by the assessing officer. From the perusal of assessment order it is seen that search and seizure action was carried out by DDIT (Inv) unit 4 (1) Mumbai on 17.11.2014 in the case of Runwal group. In the statement recorded u/s, 132 (4) of the IT Act of Mr. Subodh Runwal, Director of the company, it was admitted by him that the project Runwal Greens (M/s. Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd.) ‘on money’ totaling to Rs, 63,39,52,372/- was taken by him over and above the agreement value of the property. The list of customers was received by the ITO 292) (4) Mumbai in which the name of Shri Pradeep Kriplani, the 4 ITA NO. 5968/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Pradeep Kriplani assessee was there and it was mentioned that an amount of ₹.77,18,100/- has been paid by him on 9.01.2014 (i.e FY 2013-14) in case for Tower No. T7, Flat No. 403 in the project ‘Runwal Greens’ Mumbai. Since the assessee had not filed the return of income the Assessing Officer had the belief on the basis of information he had that income has escaped assessment and so after recording his reasons case was reopened u/s. 148. The assessee had been provided the reasons of reopening by the ITO 29(2)(5) on 21.04.2017. Since the residential status of the assessee was Non-resident the case was transferred to Assessing Officer of International Taxation. The assessee did not raise any objection against the reasons for reopening before the AQ. Now it is pertinent to understand the modus operandi of the builder Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. which was found during the course of search operations. The same has been elaborately discussed in the Assessment order para 4 onwards. In the seized paper a list was found which had details of Tower, Flat No, date of agreement sale values as per mail. The value as per agreement was mentioned in the said list. In this list the appellants all details are matching. The seized Annexure clearly contains flat no. booked by the assessee as well as the booking date is same 09.01.2014 as reflected in ledger account submitted by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings Rs. 77,18,100/- is mentioned in the list against assessee’s name as being paid in cash. The appellant has reiterated before me what has been submitted before the assessing officer. In the light of above investigation and enquiries conducted by the Investigation wing it is proved beyond doubt that on money was taken by the Runwal group which has been accepted by the Director of the co. also and as stated by assessing officer the amount surrendered on the basis of Annexure by the group includes the amount of Rs. 77,18,100/- mentioned against the appellant’s name also. Once the basis presumption has been proved it is not debatable that assessee has not given any online money. As the list contains all the bookings against which online money is also mentioned I have no hesitation to conclude that the addition made by assessing officer u/s. 69 is correct. Hence I dismiss the appeal. In the nutshell, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. On a careful perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the reasons given therein, we do not find any reason to interfere especially when there 5 ITA NO. 5968/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Pradeep Kriplani is no representation from the assessee side. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24.02.2022 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 24.02.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum