NUTAN MARUTI PAWAR, MUMBAI V. ITO-21(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6109/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6059 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit; Set aside
• Section: 144; 44AD

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 6109/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Nutan Maruti Pawar 31/6, Bhageshwar Bhuvan, S.K. Bole Road Agar Bazar, Dadar West Mumbai-400 028. PAN : AJEPP2203R Vs. ITO-21(2)(4) 109, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Parel Mumbai-400 012. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Naina Krishnakumar Date of Hearing 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.07.2022 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 24.6.2019 passed by learned CIT(A)-48, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.11,98,500/- relating to cash deposits and Rs.11,40,982/- relating to commission income made by the Assessing Officer. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though notices were sent by registered post on several occasions. Hence, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without presence of the assessee. 3. I have heard learned DR and perused the record. The assessee is an individual and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer to the best of his judgement under section 144 of the I.T. Act, since notices issued by him were returned back by the postal authorities with the noting ‘left’. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has declared income of Rs. 9,28,800/-, which consisted of income from business of Rs. 7,76,000/- and Nutan Maruti Pawar 2 income from other sources of Rs. 1,52,800/-. Income from business was estimated under section 44AD of the Act at the rate of 8% of the gross turnover of Rs. 95,86,850/-. 4. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has transacted in commodity exchanges to the tune of Rs. 44.59 crores and received commission of Rs.11,40,982/- from M/s. Sharekhan Limited. Further assessee has also deposited cash of Rs. 37,62,500/- in Federal Bank Limited. The Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee has not declared commission of Rs.11,40,982/- and accordingly assessed the same. With regard to cash deposits, the Assessing Officer arrived at peak credit of Rs.11,98,500/- and assessed the same. Learned CIT(A) also confirmed both the additions. 5. First issue relates to addition of Rs. 11,98,500/- being peak credit cash deposit made by the assessee with the bank account. I noticed that neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee has furnished details of working of peak credit. However, before learned CIT(A) the assessee has taken a stand that the peak credit will not be the same as arrived at by the Assessing Officer. Learned CIT(A) has also not discussed anything about the peak credit statement, if any, furnished by the assessee. Without these documents, it will be difficult to adjudicate this issue. Hence, I am of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for examining it afresh. 6. Next issue relates to addition of Rs.11,40,982/- relating to the commission income. From paragraph 6 of the assessment order, I noticed that the Assessing Officer himself has observed that the assessee has incurred a loss of Rs.7,28,134/- from M/s. Sharekhan Limited. The Assessing Officer also observed that the above commission income has been received from M/s. Sharekhan Limited only. Thus, both the observations are contradictory to each other. Besides the above, the assessee has also declared income of Nutan Maruti Pawar 3 Rs.7,76,000/- from business activity. In my view all these figures have to be considered together in order to arrive at a just view of the matter. Accordingly I am of the view that this issue also requires verification at the end of learned CIT(A). Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this also and restore the same to his file for examining it afresh. 7. Needless to mention the assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to furnish relevant information and explanations to Ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2022. Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 18/07/2022 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. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai