KHYATI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. D.C.I.T. CENT. CIR. - 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7105/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4850 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 68; 6; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM I.T.A. NO S . 7105 TO 7108 /M/201 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 ) M/S. KHYATI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD. B - 11, DAHISAR GAURAV, H. JOSHI MARG, DAHISAR (E), MUMBAI - 400068 . VS. DCIT - CC - 8(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCK1949B ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 27/03/ 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /05/ 201 9 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 50 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 . I.T.A.NO.7106 /M/201 7 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5 0 , ASSESSEE BY: SHRI AJAY R. SINGH (AR ) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI M.K. SINGH (DR) ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 2 MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVAN T TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE: 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASST ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OR 142(1) NOR PROVIDING, COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NOTICE/S. 153C WAS ISSUED AND THE ALLEGED ADDITION WAS MADE, INSPITE OF SPECI FIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AS WELL BEFORE CIT (A). 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE NAMELY JIK IND LTD. WITHOUT PROVIDING COPY OF ORDER, NOR PROVIDING STATEMENT/ O PPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE' SAID ALLEGED PARTY. HENCE THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS VIOLATED AT TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. II. ADDITION OF RS. 2,34,52,668/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ITS. 2,34,52,668/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH CONDUCTED O N JIK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD WHERE AS NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED TO S SESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER DONE ANY BUSINESS NOR ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WITH JI K INDUSTRIES PVT. NOR AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON BY THE NAME OF DILIP SHAH TO TRANSACT BUSINESS. HENCE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C AS WELL AS THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR AND LETTER DT 3/3/2016. III. ADDITION OF RS.1,55,000/ - AS INCOME AS PER 26AS. ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 3 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,55,000/ - AS PER 26AS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME IS REFLECTED IN BANK STATEMENT AND APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF A SSESSEE THEREFORE AGAIN ADDITION AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 7. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SEARCH WAS CON DUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ON 04.02.2011. M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF CRYSTAL AND HANDMADE ARTISTIC GLASSES. M/S. KHAYATI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD. WAS ALSO SEARCHED AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOT ICE U/S 153C OF THE I.T. ACT. 1961 WAS ISSUED TO M/S. KHAYATI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD. M/S. KHAYATI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD. FAILED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO F AILED TO FILE THE REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. AFTER PROVIDING THE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES , THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/142(1) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED ON 28.02.2013 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 11,32,195/ - . THEREAFTER, THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - 4, MUMBAI INITIATED THE PROVISIONS U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 04.03.2015. HE OBSERVED THAT THE HUGE MONEY TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK LTD, ACCOUNT NO.143000020795 FO R F.Y.2005 - 06. THE TOTAL CREDIT FOR THE YEAR WAS RS.2,44,29,863/ - . IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUE WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT CREDIT AS ACCOM MODATION ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 4 ENTRY, TO ASSIST PROVIDING BOGUS PURCHASES/SALES BILLS. HE WORKED OUT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 4% OF SUCH RECEIPTS. THE CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT T HE AO ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED THE COMMISSION INCOME WHEREAS INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE T REATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER , THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 03.02.2015 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144/142(1) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT ON 28.02.2013 WAS SET ASIDE AND AO WAS DIRECTED T O RECTIFY THE MATTER AND TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. 5. IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE AO ACCORDED TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF LETTER DATED 01.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO NOR ADDUCED ANY EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM IF ANY. THEREAFTER UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN SUM OF RS.2,45,84,863/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,45,84,860/ - . FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO S . 1 & 2 6 . WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 144/142(1) R.W.S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 5 THIS ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WHO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE , NON - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1) AND NOT SUPPLYING THE SEIZED THE MATERIAL U/S 153C OF THE ACT HAS NO CONSEQUENCES BEING THE ORDER PASSED BY AO HAS ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE BY COMMISSIONER BY VIRTUE OF ORDER DATED 04.03.2017 WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONE R HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WE NOTICED THAT THE AO ACCORDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF NOTICE DATED 01.03.2016 WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE ALSO NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE REPRESENTED BEFORE THE AO SEEKING ANY LEGAL RELIEF. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSED MADE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RECORDED THE FINDING ON THE LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLA TE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ISSUE NO S . 3, 4 & 5 7. ISSUE NOS. 3,4 & 5 ARE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,34,52,668 / - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ASSESSEE MAINTAINED HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO.1430000 20795 WITH HDFC BANK LTD. FOR THE F.Y. 2005 - 06. THE TOTAL CREDITS FOR THE YEAR WAS OF RS.2,44,29,863/ - . THE SAID ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 6 AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEPOSIT . I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.02.2013, THE AO TREATED THE SAID DEPOSIT AS COMMISSION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,32,195/ - . THEREAFTER, THE PROVISIONS U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS INVOKED AND ASSESSMENT U/S 144/142(1) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS CONCLUDED RAISING THE ADDITION OF DEPOSIT IN SUM OF RS.2,44,29,863/ - AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,45,84,860/ - . B EFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE IF ANY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. IT IS ALWAYS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CLAIM BY ADDUCING THE SUFFICIENT AND COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE AO RAISED THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NO DOUBT SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT( A) ON RECORD IN WHICH THE CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IN CONNECTION WITH RAISING THE OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO RAISE THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE DEPOSIT . T HE REL EVANT PARA IS HEREBY REPRODUCE AS UNDER.: - 6.3.2. DURING THE COURSE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL IN ITAT AGAINST THE 263 ORDERS OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) - 4, MUMBAI AS NO SUCH DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED OR FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME. THUS UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT REMAINS IN FORCE AND UNCHALLENGED. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EXCEPTED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE PRINCIPAL CIT IN THE ABOV E REFERRED ORDERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 7 6.3.3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PA'S 263 THE AO HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND SERVED THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 01.03.2016 AND AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO GIVE EXPLANATION AND FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THEIR CLAIM ON 07.03.2013. THIS HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED OR CONTRADICTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THERE WAS NO FAILURE IN THE PART OF AO IN GRANTING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6.3. 4 HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER 03.03.2016 WHICH WAS SENT TO THE AO BY THE REGISTERED POST/ SPEED POST. THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT CONSISTS OF ONE PARAGRAPH WHICH I S REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR ABOVE MENTIONED LETTER WE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR KIND ATTENTION ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS FOR YOUR SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION. WE HAD NEITHER DONE ANY BUSINESS NOR HAD ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WITH JIK INDUSTRIE S PVT. LTD., NOR AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON BY NAME MR. DILIP SHAH TO CARRY OUT ANY TRANSACTION ON OUR BEHALF. THE ZEROX COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THUS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(C) ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE REQ UEST YOU TO GIVE US THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MATERIAL SEIZED BY YOU HAVING ALLEGED AND SO CALLED OUR INVOLVEMENT AND ALSO THE ALLEGED AND SO CALLED COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY US IN FAVOUR OF MR. DILIP SHAH. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE TRACKING OF THE SPEED POST/REGISTERED POST, THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT IS SET TO HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE DELIVERED TO THE DCIT. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR ALSO FILED XEROX COPY OF TRACKING SYSTE M. 6.3.5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE IA. AR AND RIND THAT EVEN THE XEROX COPY OF THE TRACKING FILED BEFORE ME DOES NOT MENTION THE NAME AND DESIGNATION OF THE CONCERNED PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.03.2016 I.E. THE DCIT (CENTRAL) - 8(1), MUMBAI. IN THIS ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 8 REGARD IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IT WAS FOR THE APPELLANT TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER SUBMISSION OR THE REPLY IS TO BE MADE BEFORE AO, REACHES THE ACTUAL DESTINATION AND TO THE HANDS OF THE AO . IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALL THE ASSESSES ARE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AND MAKE SUBMISSIONS EITHER BY PERSONAL APPEARANCE OR THROUGH THE DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 288 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT TO APPEAR IN PERSON AND EXPLAIN HIS CASE BEFORE AO IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE AND ANY PRUDENT ASSESSE DOES NOT FOREGO SUCH OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND GETTING NATURAL JUSTICE. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT IS SURPRISING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONSCIO USLY DECIDED NOT TO MAKE THE ABOVE REFERRED SUBMISSION BEFORE AO. THE APPELLANT FURTHER HAS OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUBMISSION OR DETAILS IN THE OFFICIAL TAPAL/ DAK, BUT THE APPELLANT DID NOT AVAIL THIS OPPORTUNITY ALSO. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T THAT THE CONCERNED AO OR HIS/HER STAFF REFUSED TO RECEIVE ANY SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THUS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY CHOSE LONGER ROUTE AND FAILED TO TAKE UP ITS OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR FILING ANY SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO. EVEN GOD HELP THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES. IN THIS CASE, IN THE ABOVE GIVEN SITUATION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT ITSELF EFFECTIVELY FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE SHOW CAUSE DATED 01.03.2016 ISSUED AND SERVED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, NO FAULT CAN B E FOUND OR ATTRIBUTED TO THE AO. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE PURPORTED LETTER OF THE APPELLANT DATED 03.03.2016 WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE FILING OF COPY OF SUCH LETTER DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDING WILL AMOUNT TO FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HERE IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY LETTER TO ADMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 AND THEREFORE THE PURPORTED LETTER DATED 03.03.20 16 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH XEROX COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE DIRECTOR SHRI. SUBHASH DESAI DATED 05.03.20 13 IS NOT BEING ADMITTED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER MADE ANY PRAYER NOR GIVEN ANY PROPER AND EFFECTED EXPLANATION TO ADMIT T HE SAME AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ADMITTED. ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 9 6.3.6. COMING BACK TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE IT MAY BE SEEN THAT HUGE MONEY TRANSACTION WERE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK LIMITED - A/C NO. 143200002 0795 FOR FY 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 I.E. AY 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN BANK ACCOUNT BY CHEQUE WHERE IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAWN. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAD TREATED THE CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND RATHER THAN MAKING FULL ADDITION PREFERRED TO MAKE ADDITION @ 4% AS COMMISSION INCOME BEING EARNED FOR PROVIDING ENTRIES. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT S WERE NOT IN THE FORM OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY PLEADING REGARDING PEAK CREDIT THEORY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ARE UNTENABLE AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO MOUNTING TO RS.2,34,52,668, RS.2,26,46,931, RS.6,71,79,381 & RS.2,19,20,333 IN THE AYS 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08, 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY ARE UPHELD AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPEL LANT. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. I TO 4 RELATED TO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND MAKING OF ADDITION BY THE AO ARE DISMISSED. 8. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FINDING, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT IN SUM OF RS. 2,34,52,668/ - WAS CREDITED WITH THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE EXPLAINED THE SAID AMOUNT BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT IS INCUM BENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM BY ADDUCING THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE PRODUCED ANY COGENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON THE FILE EVEN BEFORE US. THE FACTS ARE NOT ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 10 DISTINGUISHABLE AT THIS STAGE ALSO. WE FIND NO GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THESE ISSUES AND DECIDE THESE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ISSUE NO. 6 9. ISSUE NO. 6 IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION IN SUM OF RS.1,55,000/ - AS PER 26AS. THE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CIT(A) IS MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 7 WHICH IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER.: - 7 AS REGARDS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5 WITH REGARD TO 26AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION IN THE RETURN SUBMISSION FILED ON 06.09.2017 AND THEREFORE IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AND THEREFORE IS DISMISSED. 10. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE PRESSED THIS ISSUE AND PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF H IS CLAIM, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. I.T.A.NO. 7105, 7107 & 7108 /M/201 7 11 . THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE IS QUITE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED ABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE ITA. NO.7106 /M/201 7 ABOVE THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME . HOWEVER, THE ITA. NO. 7105 TO 7108/M/2017 (A.YS.) : 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 11 FIGURE IS DIFFERENT. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY ADJUDICATED IN APPEAL BEA RING IT A. NO.7106 /M/201 7 IS QUITE APPLICABLE AS MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THESE CASE S ALSO . ACCORDINGLY, THE PRES ENT APPEAL S ARE ALSO BEING HEREBY DISMISSED ON SIMILAR LINES . 12 . IN RESULT, APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 /05/ 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 2 3 /05/ 2019 V IJA Y / 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// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI