SHRI. IBRAHIM KALUSETH AGEWAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 26(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 879/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “स ” स , स ं म !"सं#, $% स $ सम& IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सं.879/म ु ं/2020 ( ,. . 2011-12) ITA NO.879/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) Shri Ibrahim KalusethAgewan Usman Tyre Services, A-55, Opp.Sion Goods Yard, LBS Road, Sion(West), Mumbai – 400 022. PAN: AGUPA-0959-N ...... ./Appellant ब, म Vs. Income Tax Officer – 26(1)(5) Mumbai. ..... / ! /Respondent . 0 / Appellant by : None / ! 0 /Respondent by : Mr.R.A.Dhyani स ु , ई 1 ! / Date of hearing : 30/05/2022 234 1 ! / Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2022 $श/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A) ] dated 30/09/2019, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The notice of hearing of appeal was sent to the assessee on 30/03/2022 for today i.e. 30/05/2022 through RPAD on the address mentioned in Form No.36 for service of notice. The notice has been returned back by the Postal Authorities with 2 ITA NO.879/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) remarks “Refused”. The refusal to accept notice is deemed as service of notice. The conduct of assessee indicates that the assessee is not keen to pursue his appeal. Therefore, we are taking up this appeal for adjudication with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and documents available on record. 3. The assessee in appeal as assailed the order of CIT(A) primarily on three counts: (i) Confirmation of addition on account of cash deposit Rs.57,54,340/- in ICICI Bank. (ii) Confirmation of addition of Rs.20,37,075/- on account of unexplained cash creditors. (iii) Confirming disallowance of expenditure debited to the P&L Account Rs.1.00 lac. 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs.9,07,200/- Theassessee is a scrap dealer. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer pointed that as per AIR information the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.57,54,340/- in ICICI Bank. The assessee has not declared the bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank. During assessment proceedings no details were furnished by the assessee explaining cash deposits, hence, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire cash deposits with ICICI Bank. 4.1 The Assessing Officer further observed that assesseein Balance Sheet has shown creditors to the tune of Rs.20,37,075/-. During assessment proceedings no confirmations from creditors and details of creditors were furnished. Hence, the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the sundry creditors. Consequently, Assessing Officer made addition of the entire amount shown against sundry creditors. 3 ITA NO.879/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) 4.2 The assessee has debited various expenses in the P&L Account. Since, the assessee failed to produce supporting bills or vouchers, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1.00 lac in respect of unproved expenses. 4.3 Against the assessment order dated 14/03/2014 the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee filed certain documents and furnished details. The CIT(A) sought remand report. After considering the same and submissions of assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in toto. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Mr.R.A.Dhyani representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has been non-cooperative before the Assessing Officer. Even in remand proceedings assessee did not co- operate and no details were furnished in support of his contention. 6. We have heard the submission made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. No material is available on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A), hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit and impugned order is upheld. 7. In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open courtonMondaythe30thday of May, 2022. Sd/ Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (VIKAS AWASTHY) $% स /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 6 , ं /Dated30/05/2022 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) 4 ITA NO.879/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ./The Appellant , 2. / ! / The Respondent. 3. ु 7!( )/The CIT(A)- 4. ु 7!CIT 5. 8 9 / ! , , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. 9 :; < = /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt.Registrar)ITAT, Mumbai