Narendra Kachrulal Abad, Jalna V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna

ITA 866/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1101 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.866/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Narendra Kachrulal Abad, Abad House, Nal Galli, Kadrabad, Jalna-431203. PAN : ACSPA9531C Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jalna. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s order dated 30.03.2019 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/174/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The assessee’s twin substantive grievances raised in the instant appeal challenges the correctness of the lower authorities’ action adding an amount of Rs.9,54,365/- involving bogus losses on Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 23.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 26.05.2022 ITA No.866/PUN/2019 2 account of client code modification as per the department investigation wing’s report. This is followed by his latter substantive grievance seeking to reverse the CIT(A) section making enhancement of Rs.29,12,602/- in his lower appellate discussion. 3. It is noted with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the impugned former addition as well as the enhancement herein are based on the assessee’s transactions made through broker M/s Sushil Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. involving losses of Rs.,4,13,150/- out of profits of Rs.5,41,215/- as well as the latter entry of Rs.29,12,602/-. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s enhancement discussion in para 5.2 reveals that the assessee had not even filed all the corresponding details as well. Faced with this situation, I find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities’ action on both these counts. It is further made clear before parting that although the assessee has filed the details paper book as well as additional pleadings, the same hardly rescue his grievance since filing of mere documentary evidence does not prove genuineness of transactions in light of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 241 ITR 801 (SC), CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC). The assessee failed in both of his substantive grievances in above terms therefore. ITA No.866/PUN/2019 3 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 26 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26 th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Aurangabad. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.