Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Paresh N. Trivedi, Mumbai vs Dcit Cent. Cir. 8, Mumbai on 18 February, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "C", MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
BEFORE SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.5280/M/2016
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Shri Paresh N. Trivedi, DCIT-CC-8,
1062/63 A-Wing, Mumbai
Clover Regency,
Ramji Ashar Lane, Vs.
M.G. Road,
Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai-400 077
PAN: ABCPT5819R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for:
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Abi Rama Karthikiyan, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019
ORDER
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.06.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.
2. The various grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
"1. Learned A.O./CIT(A) has erred in making addition of cash of Rs.95,600=00 gold coin of Rs. 6,62,600=00 & Diamond Jewellery of about 11.2 cts of Rs. 2,70,800=00 against the principle of equity & natural justice & against the stated position of law.ITA No.5280/M/2016
2 Shri Paresh N. Trivedi
2. Learned A.O. / CIT (A) has erred in making addition of cash of Rs.95,600=0.
3. Learned A.O./CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that cash found was withdrawn from bank & released by investigation dept as explained.
4. Learned A.O./CIT(A) has erred in making addition on account of Diamond Jewellery of Rs. 2,70,800=00.
5. Learned A.O. / CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that source of acquisition was fully explained & diamond jewellery was released by investigation dept as explained.
6. Learned A.O. / CIT(A) has erred in making addition on account of gold coins of Rs. 6,62,600=00.
7. Learned A.O./ CIT (A) has failed to appreciate tha t source of gold coins was fully explained.
8. Learned A.O./CIT(A) has erred in not giving credit the 6,62,600=00 paid to DD accounts DIT from the date of payment.
9. Looking at above factual position your appellant prays your honour to kindly delete various additions made by AG. & oblige.
10. Your appellant craves the leave to, add to, alter or amend the grounds of appeal from time to time."
3. At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. From the record, we observed that the present appeal was decided ex-parte on 27.04.18. Later on, Misc. Application No. 555/Mum/2017 was filed for recalling the ex-parte order datd 27.04.18. Consequently, after hearing both the parties, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT concluded that assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case on merits. Accordingly, the ex-parte order dated 27.04.18 was recalled with a direction to fix the date of hearing on 18.02.19 vide the Coordinate Bench order dated ITA No.5280/M/2016 3 Shri Paresh N. Trivedi 17.01.19 which was pronounced in the open court. It is important to mention here that even inspite of providing one more opportunity to the assessee and fixing the same for hearing on 18.02.19, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore we have no other option except to again proceed the assessee ex-parte. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex- parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
4. The facts in brief are that a search and seizure action was carried out on M/s. Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd. and its group companies and its promoters. The assessee was also covered under section 132(1) of the Act. During the course of search cash, gold coins and diamond jewellery were found and accordingly additions were made on three accounts namely cash of Rs.95,600/-, gold coin worth Rs.6,62,600/- and diamond jewellery of Rs.2,72,800/- in the assessment framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 06.03.2013. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the ITA No.5280/M/2016 4 Shri Paresh N. Trivedi submissions and contentions of the assessee passed order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. During the course of hearing nothing has been brought before us to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which otherwise appear to be correct and reasonable. After hearing the Ld. D.R. and considering the facts on record and merits of the case, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and we are inclined to affirm the same.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N. K. Pradhan) (Sandeep Gosain)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 18.02.2019.
* Dhananjay, 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 Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.