Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Moh. Javed Rafique Shaikh, Mumbai vs Ito Wd 22(2)(3), Mumbai on 6 October, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "SMC", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.3200/Mum/2016
(Assessment Year 2006-07)
Mohd.Javed Mohd Rafique Shaikh,
E.No.403, 4th Floor, Vivek Apt.CHS,
CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz(E),
Mumbai 400 098
PAN:BCQPS8244B ...... Appellant
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 22(2)(3),
Mumbai. .... Respondent
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Ms. Hemalatha
Date of hearing : 12/07/2017
Date of pronouncement : 06/10/2017
ORDER
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-35 Mumbai dated 18/02/2013, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 15/12/2008.
2. In this appeal assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-
" 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of cash deposits of Rs.21,62,800/- towards Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts of the case.2 ITA No.3200/Mum/2016
(Assessment Year 2006-07)
2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of cheque deposits of Rs. 3,22,000/- towards Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts of the case.
3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40.000/- on account of low withdrawal for household expenses without considering the facts of the case."
3. At the time of hearing, it was noted that neither the assessee nor any of his representative has appeared in spite of issuance of notice of hearing. The record further reveals that on more than one occasion notices of hearing have been sent to the address as stated by the assessee in column - 10 of the Memo of Appeal by Registered Post and on each of the occasion it has come back with the postal remark "unclaimed". Under these circumstances, following Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the appeal of the assessee is being disposed off ex-parte after hearing the respondent-Revenue on merits.
4. The relevant facts as emerging from the orders of the authorities below can be summarized as follows. The assessee is an individual and for the assessment year under consideration, he filed the return of income declaring a total income at Rs.1,45,671/-, which was subject to a scrutiny assessment on account of an AIR information to the effect that assessee had deposited cash of Rs.17,62,800/- in his Savings Bank account maintained with Bharat Co- operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., Kalina Branch during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In the ensuing assessment, the total income has been assessed at Rs.26,70,490/- by, inter-alia, considering the deposits in the bank account as unexplained of Rs.21,62,800/-, as also unexplained deposits Rs.3,22,000/- and also Rs. 40,000/- on account of low withdrawals. The CIT(A) notes that in spite of various opportunities, assessee 3 ITA No.3200/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2006-07) did not attend before him, and, therefore, he has adjudicated the controversy on the basis of the material on record and accordingly, he affirmed all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Against such a decision of the CIT(A) assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material on record. The first addition is of Rs.21,62,800/-, which reflects various cash deposits made by the assessee in his accounts maintained with ICICI Bank and Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have recorded a finding, and assessee has not substantiated its claim in respect of such deposits. In para 9.7 of his order, the CIT(A) has specifically recorded such a finding that even before me there is no material to distract from the finding of CIT(A), which is hereby affirmed. Thus, on this aspect assessee fails.
6. The second dispute is with regard to a sum of Rs.3,22,000/- which has been assessed as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) notes that the aforesaid sum comprised of Rs.25,000/- deposited in the ICICI Bank by transfer and an amount of Rs.2,97,000/-, which represents a cheque deposited in the account maintained with Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd., The CIT(A) further observed that the gross receipts disclosed by the assessee in his Profit & Loss Account is much smaller and, therefore, the impugned deposits could not be construed as business receipts. In the absence of any explanation put forth by the assessee, the addition has been made under section 68 of the Act treated the same as unexplained credits. Even before me, there is no material on record to substantiate the aforesaid credits, therefore, the action of the CIT(A) in this regard is affirmed. Thus, on this aspect also assessee fails.
4 ITA No.3200/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2006-07)
7. The last dispute is with regard to low withdrawals for household expenses. I find no infirmity in the findings of the lower authorities and they are justified in making the estimated addition having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the ordersl of the authorities below on this aspect are also affirmed. Thus, on this aspect also assessee fails.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2017 Sd/-
(G.S.PANNU) ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 06/10/2017 Vm, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant ,
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai