Shripad Sharad Mule, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 856/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1615 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 14A; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !'!! # , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 856/PN/2014 $& ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRIPAD SHARAD MULE, FLAT NO. 27, B WING, SUYOJIT LAWNS, PHASE II, MAHATMA NAGAR, EXTENSION, NASHIK 422007 PAN : AAFPM5045H ....... / APPELLANT )& / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), NASHIK / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 29-06-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-06-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK DATED 25-02 -2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 ITA NO. 856/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 2. A PERUSAL OF THE NOTING SHEET OF THE CASE FILE SHOWS TH AT DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED. THE APPEAL WAS FIRST LISTED FOR HEARIN G ON 29-09-2015. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT AT THE ADDR ESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 26-08-2015. HOWEVER, ON 29-09-2015 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 29-12-2015 AND FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD FOR THE SAID DATE ON 01-10-2015. THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESS EE. ON 29-12-2015 AGAIN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 06-04-2016. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 06-01-2016. TH E SAID NOTICE WAS ALSO DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON 06-04-2016 AGAIN NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE SAID DATE THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 29-06-2016. THE NOTICE WAS ONCE AGAIN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROU GH RPAD ON 25- 04-2016 AND THE SAME WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSE E. TODAY AGAIN NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARDS OF THE NOTICES SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH BEARS THE SIGNATURE /INITIAL OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE NOTICE ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALL THE NOT ICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE FORM NO. 3 6 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT NO POINT OF TIME ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE REGISTRY. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE D ECIDING THIS APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. 3 ITA NO. 856/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GREEN HOUSE CONS TRUCTION AND FLORICULTURE. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3,48,000/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDE R CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 17-08-2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FURNISHING INFORMATION/PARTICULARS WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 05-08-2011. ONE SHRI SANDEEP P AHADE, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS DULY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 17-08-2011. ON THE SAID DATE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE APPEARED. THEREAFTER, FRESH NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 31-10-2011. SHRI SANDEEP PAHADE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE S AID DATE AND FILED COPY OF AUDIT REPORT AND ACCOUNT EXTRACTS AND THE HEARING WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED TO 09-11-2011. THEREAFTER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPE ARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, PURCHASE BILLS, SALES B ILLS, ETC. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT BY MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN THE INCOME RETUN ED BY THE ASSESSEE : 4 ITA NO. 856/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 I. DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE ON TELEPHONE, PETROL AND DIESEL, MOBILE BILLS, OFFICE EXPENSES, ETC. ` 1,12,500/- II. DONATION ` 1,000/- III. UNCONFIRMED SUNDRY CREDITORS ` 3,32,336/- IV. DISALLOWANCE OF BANK INTEREST U/S. 14A ` 2,97,019/- V. UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS ` 3,30,500/- TOTAL ` 10,73,355/- AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-12-2011 P ASSED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). EVEN BEFORE THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFFORDED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. ON 19-02-2013, 08-03-2013, 25-07-2013, 02-08-2013, 21-11-2 013 AND FINALLY ON 18-11-2013. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT MA TERIAL REBUTTING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN SE COND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION / DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 1,12,500/- OUT OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE, PETROL AND DIESEL AND VEHICLE EXPENSES MADE PURELY ON AD HOC BASIS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED U/S 44 AS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND AUDIT REPORT AND ACCOUNTS EXTRACTS WERE 5 ITA NO. 856/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31/10/201 1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION / DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.3,32,336/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH WERE DULY REFL ECTED ON THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT ON 30/11/2011 DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 2,97,019 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14 A OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961, WHEN NO BANK INTEREST OF RS. 2,97,019/- WAS DEBITED TO THE AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND WITHOUT ANY REASONING IN SUPPORT OF ARISING OF THE FIGURE OF RS. 2,97,019/-. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION / DISALLOWA NCE OF RS. 3,30,500/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE: ON ADHOC BASIS IN SPI TE OF THE FACT THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE DULY REFLECTE D IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND ACCOUNT EXTRACTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWA NCES AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THE RELEVANT MATERIAL GATHERED BY HIM WHICH HE HAS TAKEN INTO AC COUNT FOR MAKING ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER DELETE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. SHRI ANIL CHAWARE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED O N RECORD ANY CONFIRMATIONS/DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. SIMILAR LY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE 6 ITA NO. 856/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 ASSESSING OFFICER IN A VERY FAIR AND JUSTIFIED MANNER HAS DISA LLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPP ORTING DOCUMENTS AND 20% OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. T HE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION IN RESP ECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF THE E NTIRE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : 6. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT I S NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. ON MERITS ALSO THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,12,500/- OUT OF TELEPHONE AND MOBILE, PETROL AND DIESEL AND VEHICLE EXPENSES, ` 1,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION, ` 3,32,336/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED SUNDRY CREDITORS, ` 2,97,019/- ON A/C OF BANK INTEREST DISALLOWED U/S. 14A AND ` 3,30,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN GROUNDS AGAINST AL L THESE ADDITIONS BEFORE ME. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT NO PROPE R OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS C ONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAD PROVIDED REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH DETAILS WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES, CREDITORS, CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ETC. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT CHOSE TO IGNORE THE VARIOUS STATUTORY NOT ICES THAT THE AO HAD SENT TO HIM. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, DESPITE GIVING REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE CONTROVERTING THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. HE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL CONTESTING THE VARIOUS ADD ITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES, THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO ARE CONFIRMED. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECALCITRANT AND HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE CHOOSE NOT TO DEFEND HIS CASE DESPITE REP EATED 7 ITA NO. 856/PN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 OPPORTUNITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW, EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AP PEARED IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT SEVERAL NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE OFFICE REGISTRY WERE DULY RECEIVED BY HIM. THE LAW DOES NOT COME TO T HE RESCUE OF THOSE, WHO SLUMBER OVER THEIR OWN CAUSE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWAN CES IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 30 TH JUNE, 2016 RK *+,$-.'/'(- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. ' / THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE