Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Mohd Rafi Gulam Rasul Shaikh, Mumbai vs Ito 25(3)(3), Mumbai on 1 September, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " B" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
ITA No. 577/Mum/2013
(A.Y:2009-10)
Mohd Rafi Gulam Rasul Income Tax Officer,
Shaikh W ard 25(3)(3), Bandra IT
R.D. Khona 8, New Mumbai
Ashwamedh Co -Op Hsg. Soc.,
Vs.
Ram Maruti Cross Road No.2,
Near Bank of Baroda, Thane
(W )
P AN No. AAVPS1282R
Appellant .. Respondent
Assessee by .. None
Revenue by .. Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Date of hearing .. 22-08-2017
Date of pronouncement .. 01-09-2017
ORDER
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-35, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-35/ITO-25(3)(3)/ITA-269/11-12 dated 29- 11-2012. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward 25(3)(3), Mumbai for the A.Y.2009-10 vide order dated 09-12-2011 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter 'the Act').
2. At the outset, it is noticed that at least six occasions this appeal was fixed for hearing but none turned up from assessee's side. Accordingly, when this matter was called up, we decided to hear the appeal ex-parte qua assessee on merits.
3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition under section 2 ITA No. 577/Mum/2013 Mohd Rafi Gulam Rasul S haikh (A.Y:09-10) 68 of Rs. 2.50 lakhs in respect to loan received form one Mansingh B Rajputh and confirming the action of the AO making addition of Rs. 1,58,786/- in respect to agriculture income.
4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessment was framed ex-parte and assessee has not co-operated with the Revenue. The AO added a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs being unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and also no evidence was filed before AO in respect to agricultural income of Rs. 1,58,786/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A) who after taking remand report and the submissions of the assessee dated 09-04-2012 and 23-04-2012 and remand report of the AO dated 23-05-2012, whereby the assessee could not discharge onus in respect of this loan and agricultural income. From the very ground, it is seen that this loan received and even claimed from Mansingh B Rajputh, whereas this loan actually taken from Leela D Chandak but no confirmation or no documentary evidence was submitted before CIT(A). In view of the above facts, we are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of the order of the AO. Even now before us, the assessee could not file any evidence in support of his claim rather he has not represented despite numerous opportunities. In view of these facts, we have no alternative except to confirm the addition. The appeal of assessee is dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01-09-2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJESH KUMAR) (MAHAVIR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 01-09-2017
Sudip Sarkar /Sr.PS
3
ITA No. 577/Mum/2013
Mohd Rafi Gulam Rasul S haikh (A.Y:09-10) Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT (A), Mumbai.
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI