MRS. PRANITA P THAKUR,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(3), , THANE

ITA 4704/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Mrs. Pranita P Thakur against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which pertained to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.19,10,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, following a search operation that revealed unexplained cash entries in the assessee's books. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case based on findings from a search in the Swastik Group, which implicated the assessee in unexplained cash transactions. The tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-compliance and failure to substantiate her claims in both the original and appellate proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25873 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KARPE
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; Non compliance
• Section: 148; 132; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM ITA No. 4704/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year:2010-11) ITA No. 4705/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mrs. Pranita P Thakur Thakur Niwar, Chatrapati Shivaji Road, Virar (W), Mumbai-401 303 Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3) Thane-400 602 PAN/GIR No. AAUPT 2294 F (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Avinash Karpe Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11 and 2009-10. 2. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when these appeals were called out for hearing, nor any adjournment application stands received. It was observed from the order sheet entries on the file that there has been no representation whatsoever by the assessee on several hearings. 3. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby dispose of this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record. 2 ITA Nos. 4704 & 4705/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2009-10) Mrs. Pranita P Thakur vs. ITO 4. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4704/Mum/2023 as a lead case. ITA No. 4704/Mum/2023 5. The assessee has challenged the appeal on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity of hearing along with the ground that the ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to decide the assessee’s case. The assessee has also challenged the addition of Rs.19,10,000/- as ‘unexplained cash credit’ u/s. 68 of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income on 12.09.2011, declaring total income at Rs.7,45,560/-. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.01.2016 for the reason that pursuant to a search action u/s. 132 of the Act carried out in the case of Swastik Group of cases dated 31.07.2014, it was observed that the assessee has introduced cash aggregating to Rs.19,10,000/- in a books of accounts which was found to be unexplained in her return of income, thereby holding that income has escaped assessment. 7. The learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2016, determining the total income at Rs.26,55,560/- after making an addition on the impugned amount as ‘unexplained investment’ u/s. 68 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide an ex parte order dated 27.10.2023 had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that the assessee was non compliant through out the appellate proceeding. 3 ITA Nos. 4704 & 4705/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2009-10) Mrs. Pranita P Thakur vs. ITO 9. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has earned income from house property, share in partnership firm and interest income. The ld. A.O. reopened the assessee’s case pursuant to the search action carried out in the Swastik Group where from the computer server of the assessee, the ld. A.O. retrieved information that the assessee has introduced cash of Rs.3,25,000/- on 15.05.2007 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.09.2007 and there was also cash introduction of Rs.35,00,000/- in F.Y. 2008-09 and Rs.19,10,000/- in F.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.7,50,000/- during F.Y. 2010-11, which was found to be ‘unexplained income’ of the assessee. The assessee during the assessment proceeding had furnished copy of her return of income along with the computation of income, bank statement, P & L account and balance sheet and schedule of capital account. Further, the ld. A.O. observed that the assessee has received share profit from various entities of Swastik Group, had closing balance in respect of the said group, thereby evidencing that the assessee had business transaction with the said companies. The ld. A.O. also stated that various cash transactions has also been made by the assessee. Upon perusal of the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the ld. A.O. concluded that the assessee had not substantiated by cogent evidence, the impugned transactions and, therefore, held the same to be unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Pertinently, the assessee has also failed to submit any reply before the first appellate authority. The ld. CIT(A) has also specified that this is a second round of appeal where the Tribunal had set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de nova adjudication 4 ITA Nos. 4704 & 4705/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2009-10) Mrs. Pranita P Thakur vs. ITO which was again decided against the assessee for non compliance. The said order was not brought to our notice by either side. From the order of the ld. CIT(A), we infer that this is the second round of appeal by the assessee and the assessee has continuously been non compliant before the lower authorities as well as before us. There are no documentary evidences filed before us to substantiate the claim of the assessee. 11. In the absence of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus casted upon her to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction, as warranted by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No. 4705/Mum/2023 12. The findings applied in ITA No. 4704/Mum/2023 will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. 13. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.10.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Gagan Goyal) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 25.10.2024 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "