JYOTI SHRINIVAS VELHANKAR, MUMBAI V. CIT 18, MUMBAI

ITA 961/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2210 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.961/M/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. JYOTI SHRINIVAS VELHANKAR, W/O SHRINIVAS VELHANKAR, B-4, MUTUAL COLONY, MOGAL LANE, MAHIM, MUMBAI 400 016 PAN: AACPV 5946L VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 18, ROOM NO.517, 5 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400 012 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK JOHRI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.12.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS AGIT ATED THE INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THERE BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE AO) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. EARLIER ALSO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE SO MANY TIMES. BUT NONE HAS EVER COME ON THE BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE LAST SO MANY HEARINGS. ITA NO.961/M/2013 SMT. JYOTI SHRINIVAS VELHANKAR 2 IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING HER APPEAL. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEA RING THE LD. D.R. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT REV EALS THAT THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PRO PERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.50 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD NOT EXAMINED T HE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY QUER IES IN THIS RESPECT DESPITE THE AIR INFORMATION. THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCRE ASE BY WAY OF FRESH CAPITAL AS WELL AS SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. H OWEVER, NO EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS WERE PLACED ON RECORD TO PROVE T HE SOURCE OF FUNDS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. CIT THEREFORE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE NOT SET ASIDE. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY IN RESPECT TO THE SAID NOTICE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUB MITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. EVEN THE AO HAD ALSO FAILED TO CALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IN THIS RESPECT FROM THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER CONCERNE D AUTHORITIES. THE LD. CIT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E ON RECORD TO VERIFY THE INCREASE IN CAPITAL, THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS T AKEN, THE DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS, THE NAMES, BANK DETAILS, CREDITWORTHINES S ETC. TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE LOAN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 31.10.11 WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND D IRECTED THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THE LD. D.R. HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE OBSERV ATIONS OF THE LD. CIT AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNI SH THE DETAILS AS WELL AS THE JUSTIFICATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS ITA NO.961/M/2013 SMT. JYOTI SHRINIVAS VELHANKAR 3 WELL AS INCREASE IN THE PAID UP CAPITAL AND SECURED LOANS AND UNSECURED LOANS. HENCE, THE LD. CIT HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED HIS JURISDIC TION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 6. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R., WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.12.2015. SD/- SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 09.12.2015. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.