TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuineness of the transactions, resulting in the learned CIT(A) upholding the addition of ₹ 14,31,647/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. Before us also, we find that the assessee, except for raising the grounds of appeal has failed to bring on record any material evidence to establish the genuineness of the aforesaid cash credits in the bank account. In this factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for from us in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and therefore uphold the same - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 2868/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2016 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri None For the Respondent : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A. M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 18, Mumbai dated 27.11.2013 for A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 31.08.2007 declaring income of ₹ 1,47,858/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee at those hearings, nor was any letter seeking adjournment filed on the assessee s behalf. On the day the Bench did not function, the next date of hearing was displayed through the notice board. Notices despatched by the Registry by RPAD on two occasions were returned unserved. Even on 30.05.2016, when the case was called for hearing, none was present for the assessee, but the learned D.R. was present and ready to argue the case on behalf of Revenue. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not serious about pursuing this appeal and therefore proceed to dispose off the same with the help of the learned D.R. for Revenue and the material on record. 5.1 In the grounds raised (supra), the issues raised by the assessee pertain to the addition of ₹ 14,31,647/- under section 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained cash credits/deposits in the assessee s bank account during the relevant period. It is contended by the assessee that in the impugned order the learned CIT(A) was not justified in considering the re-deposit of withdrawals from the bank account amounting to ₹ 7,55,269/- which is included in the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, Sagar Patel, refused to receive the notices; two others, Shri Gaffar Khan and Shri Niharo Pal even after receiving the notice never responded and in respect of Shri Sheru Khan, the assessee was unable to furnish any details about him or his whereabouts. The learned D.R. contended that in these factual circumstances, the learned CIT(A) placing reliance on certain judicial precedents in this regard held that since the assessee had failed to bring on record material evidence and produce the aforesaid four parties for examination before the AO, the assessee had failed to establish/prove the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of these transactions and hence rightly upheld the addition of ₹ 14,31,642/- made under section 68 of the Act. It is contended that all the arguments in the grounds raised (supra) have been considered by the authorities below and the assessee has merely raised the grounds without bringing on record material evidence to controvert the findings of the authorities below and therefore it was pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) be upheld and the assessee s appeal dismissed. 5.3.1 We have heard the learned D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed before the AO as well as in the Paper Book filed before your honour and is appearing at page No.9 to 14. As the AO has verified and stated the facts that actually this amount of ₹ 7,55,269/ - is nothing but deposit and withdrawal from the bank account and therefore, he has not commented anything further after verification. A copy of the submission before AO dated 17.9.2012 is enclosed for your ready reference. Since this amount is out of cash balance it cannot be treated as Cash Credit and accordingly should be deleted. As regards the balance amount of Cash Credit of ₹ 8,82,000/- as detailed below for which the AO has found certain defects requires the modus operandi of the business of the assessee. Which is explained blow:- Sl. No. Name Amount 1 Gafar Khan 2,00,000/- 2 Sheru Khan 1,40,000/- 3 Sagar Patel 2,70,000/- 4 Niharu Pal 3,12,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er bearing No. 851710 dated 14.3.2007 for ₹ 1,70,000/- was issued in the name of Madhuri S. Zode whereas your appellant debited the same in the name of Sagar Patel as the Car was sold by Sagar Patel. In this manner all other pay orders were issued against purchase of Second Hand cars but debited to the persons who sold the car and finally on resale the account was squared up 2.3. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the A.O. and facts of the case carefully, it is noticed that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant has not filed documentary evidences to prove the source of cash credit in the bank accounts, thus, the A.O. has treated the amount of ₹ 14,31,647/- as unexplained cash credit. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has submitted further documents to prove the genuineness of these deposits. My predecessor has admitted the new, evidences and called for remand report of the A.O. The A.O. vide letter dated 05.08.2013 has submitted the remand report, the gist of which is reproduced as under:- The assessee submitted that cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee are loans taken from the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs and to further verify the genuineness of these documents, notices u/s 133(6) were issued to the above said four parties. In response to the notice u/s 133(6), one creditor Shri Sagar Patel from whom the loan of ₹ 2.7 lakhs was shown as refused to receive notice u/s 133(6). The other two persons namely; Shri Niharo Pal and Shri Gaffar Khan who have received the notice, neither attended. nor submitted any reply before the A.O. Regarding the 4th person Shri Sheru Khan, the assessee has submitted that he has already left India, therefore, no detail can be submitted. The A.O. has confronted this position to the assessee but it has failed to produce the parties before the A.O. for examination to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Since as per the provisions of Sec. 68, the onus is always on the assessee to submit complete evidences to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. But in the present case, the assessee has failed to submit documentary evidences and produce the parties for examination before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings as well as during the remand proceedings, thus, it has failed to discharge its onus. To strengthen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
