AJAY KUMAR BAID, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(3)1, MUMBAI

ITA 6126/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8742 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 6126/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 SHRI AJAY KUMAR BAID 1 ST FLOOR, CHANDRA MAHAL, 241, PRINCESS STREET, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. ITO - 14(3)(1) 6 TH FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400021 PAN NO. AAAPB5350N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV , DR DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/10/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008 - 09 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 5, MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). SHRI AJAY KUMAR BAID 6126/MUM/2011 2 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON VARIOUS DATES LIKE 22.06.2016 AND 03.10.2017. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ABOVE DATES. AS SUCH WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL BY HEARING THE LD. DR AND GOING THROUGH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3 . THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN ADDING RS.80,950/ - TO THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT APPEAL ON AN APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM DOING THE SAME ARE WRONG AND INSUFFICIENT, REGARDS BEING HAD TO BE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SAID ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRE D IN BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,40,110/ - U/S 69 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRONG AND INSUFFICIENT, REGARDS BEING HAD TO THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SA ID ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE AN ADDITION OF (I) RS.80,950/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME AND (II) RS.5,40,110/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BANK FD. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR AND FACTS STATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IMMENSELY TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSE ANY INTEREST INCOME OR INVESTMENT IN FDS EITHER IN RETURN OF INCOME OR BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSES SEE OR HIS MINOR CHILDREN. IT SHOULD BE KEEP IN SHRI AJAY KUMAR BAID 6126/MUM/2011 3 MIND THAT WHEN THE AO FIRST ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INTEREST INCOME AS APPEARING IN ITS DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS LD. A.R. CATEGORICALLY DENIED TO HAVE RECEIVED ANY INTEREST INCOME OR ANY INVESTMENT IN FDS. ONLY AFTER THE NECESSARY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO ESTABLISHING THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN FDS AND ALSO RECEIVED THE INTEREST INCOME THEREON, THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO ADMIT THAT INTEREST WAS RECEIVED AND ASSESSEE HAD MAD E INVESTMENT IN FDS. THIS FACT ITSELF PROVES THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE INVESTMENT IN FDS AND INTEREST THEREON. SIMILARLY, INTEREST INCOME FROM RAY BAN (I) HOLDINGS INC WAS INITIALLY DENIED AND WHEN CONFRONTED WITH CONFIRMATION FROM THE PAYERS, THE SA ME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH, BUT CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED CHEQUE IN ACTUAL. THE WHOLE BEHAVIOR OF THE ASSESSEE IS EVASIVE. THE SO CALLED AFFIDAVIT OF THE FATHER STATING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED AS FD ITSELF PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AW ARE OF THE INVESTMENT IN FD AND CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST INCOME, BUT NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME IN BALANCE SHEET, ETC. FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS FROM UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT IN SPITE OF RESIDENCE IN MUMBAI, THE INVESTMENT IN F.D. WAS MADE IN UNION BANK OF INDIA, UMBERGAON BRANCH, GUJARAT, SO THAT INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES CANNOT TRACE THE SAME. THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH IN GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. APART THERE FROM IT IS NOT PROVED THAT WHICH WERE THE SOURCES OF INCOME OF MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER AND WHEN AND HOW THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE'S MINOR CHILDREN IN EXCLUSION OF OTHER PERSONS. THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER AND ALSO NO EVIDE NCE IN FORM OF BANK PASS BOOK, SOURCE OF HER INCOME, ETC. SIMILARLY, THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE 7/12 EXTRACT FORM SHOWN A MEAGER HOLDING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE'S WIFE, WHICH IS LESS THAN AN ACRE. EVEN IT IS NOT P ROVED BY WAY OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS, CORRESPONDING SALE BILLS, PURCHASE OF SEEDS, FERTILIZER, ETC. AND LOCATION OF THE SURPLUS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME IF ANY AND ITS TRAIL I.E. BANK STATEMENT, ETC. THUS, IT SHRI AJAY KUMAR BAID 6126/MUM/2011 4 IMMENSELY TRAN SPIRES THAT THE INVESTMENT IN FD IS WHOLLY AND FULLY OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT CLEARLY DIVULGES THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNED UNDISCLOSED AND UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND TO THAT EXTENT CONCEALED THE INCOME. UNDER THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IS INDEED ONLY FIT TO BE CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARE CONFIRMED. 5. THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE H AVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT NO OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE EXCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO JUSTIFY THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ALSO NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). WE THUS AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS DELINEATED AT PARA 4 HEREINBEFORE. 7. IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/10/2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( D.T. GARASIA ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 31/10/2017 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 SHRI AJAY KUMAR BAID 6126/MUM/2011 5 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI