MARWAN WIRE PRODUCTS, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 13(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6288/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 628819914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S J SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.6288/M/2012 ( AY: 2009 - 2010 ) M/S. MARWAN WIRE PRODUCTS, 33, EASTERN CHAMBERS, 3 RD FLOOR, 128 - A, NANDLAL JANI MARG, POONA STREET, MUMBAI - 400009. / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(2)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 20. ./ PAN : AALFM 4419 N ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.J. SINGH, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 26.5 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 .5.2015 / O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) - 24, MUMBAI DATED 16.7.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 19.12.2011 . 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF RS. 22,31,178/ - SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A). 3. WHEN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED I N PERSON OR THROUGH A AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPELLANT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ON THE PREVIOUS DATE OF HEARING ON 3.12.2014, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT, AND THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN DULY NOTED, AS PER RECORD. CONSEQUENTLY, IN TERMS OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, WE HAVE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE - OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT REVENUE AND EX - PARTE QUA THE APPELLANT. 2 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM WHO IS STATED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF M.S. WIRES. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 14 2(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE ENSUING ASSESSMENT FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 19.12.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 22,31,180/ - , WHICH REFLECTED THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND TREATED THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS OF RS. 22,31,178/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 5. THE CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT IN SPITE OF ISSUING NOTICES FOR HEARING , NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) FURTHER NOTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS LED BEFORE HIM TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDITS AND THEREFORE, HE DID NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX THE SUM OF RS. 22,31,178/ - . HOWEVER, THE CIT ( A) NOTICED FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED ALONG WITH THE MEMO OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM THAT THE CREDITS / DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 22,31,178/ - WERE CLAIMED TO BE THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED FROM THE DEBTORS FOR SALES MADE IN THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEA R OF 2007 - 08. SO, HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, THE CIT (A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID PLEA. CIT (A), HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE ADDITION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN TERMS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 68 OF THE ACT , SINCE, THE MONEY IS FOUND RECORDED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS AND ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE SAME WAS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SHOW THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH MONEY. IN THIS MANNER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,31,178/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN AFFIRMED. 6. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, LD DR, APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT REVENUE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO NEGATE THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DESERVE TO BE AFFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD DR. IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS WELL AS THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN S UPPORT OF THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS FOUND CREDITED IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT. THE LACK OF EVIDENCE CONTINUES EVEN BEFORE US, AND THEREFORE, WE ARE 3 INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS . 22,31,178/ . THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 26 TH MAY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY GARG ) ( G.S. PANNU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 26 .5 .2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI