Devendra Swaroopchand Shingavi, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 618/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2956 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.618/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI DEVENDRA SWAROOPCHAND SHINGAVI, 161/162, DWARIKA APARTMENTS, MUKUNDNAGAR, PUNE 411 040 PAN NO.AULPS9948J . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD-11(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-10-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12-08-2015. AT T HE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 06 -10-2015. ON 06-10-2015 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH RPAD FIXING THE DAT E OF / DATE OF HEARING :05.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:06.01.2016 2 ITA NO.618/PN/2014 HEARING ON 15-01-2016. ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE WAS DULY S ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE (ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECORD) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE NAME OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS CALLED. NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT O F THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS BEING DE CIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEAR ING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUC ED U/S.68 AND ANOTHER RS.21,10,020/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES COMMISSION INCOME FROM GROCERY ITEMS. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19-02-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,52,980/-. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEES S IDE. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED CAPITAL OF RS.25 LAKHS IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF OFFICE NO.306, 206, AND 125 AS APPEARING IN THE ASSET ASID E OF THE BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM TH E ASSESSEES SIDE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.25 LAKHS THE AO, IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.144, MADE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILARLY, THE AO NOTED FROM THE AIR 3 ITA NO.618/PN/2014 INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.30,80,000/- DURING THE YEAR IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK, OSWAL BANDHU SAMAJ BUILDING, PUNE. SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.35,43,000/- AND THE COMMISSION RECEIVED OF RS.9,32,980/-, MADE ADDITION OF RS.26,10,020/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.25,00,000/- AND GAVE PART RELIEF ON THE OTHER ADDITION. SO FAR AS CAPITAL INTRODUCTION OF RS.25 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE LD.CIT(A) GAVE A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CAPITAL SO INTRODUCED EITHER DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. H E HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. IT WAS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME CAPITA L WAS DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRINGING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T TO TAX SEPARATELY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.25,00,000/- DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 7. SO FAR AS DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT ONE SINGLE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS MA DE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 17-02-2009 AFTER UTILIZATION OF ENTIR E CAPITAL INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR FOR ACQUISITION OF 3 OFFICE 4 ITA NO.618/PN/2014 UNITS. AFTER GRANTING TELESCOPING EFFECT OF RS.5 LAKHS THE CI T(A) SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.21,10,020/-. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO FOR WHICH THE AO PASSED THE ORDER U/S.144 AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS U/S.68 BEING UNEXPLAINED CAPITA L INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND ANOTHER RS.26,10,020 /- BEING THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE S OURCE OF WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED. WE FIND BEFORE THE CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL OF R S.25 LAKHS FOR WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.26,10,020/- IS CONCERNED TH E LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.25 LAKHS MADE ON 17-02-2009 GAVE TELESCOPING EFFECT OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.26,10,020 AND SUSTAINED ADDITI ON OF RS.21,10,020/-. HE HAD GIVEN VALID REASONS WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION. SIMILARLY, HE HAS ALSO GIVEN VALID REASONS WHILE SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.21,10,020/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 26,10,020/-. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON BOTH TH E ADDITIONS. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. 5 ITA NO.618/PN/2014 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 06 TH JANUARY, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A ) - I, PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-I, PUNE $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE C // /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE