TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- It is not in dispute that the amount in sum of ₹ 2,34,52,668/- was credited with the account of the assessee. The assessee nowhere explained the said amount before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). It is incumbent upon the assessee to prove his claim by adducing the sufficient evidence on record. The assessee nowhere produced any cogent and convincing evidence on the file even before us. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. We find no ground to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) on the issues, therefore, we confirm the finding of the CIT(A) on these issues and decide these issues in favour of the revenue against the assessee. - I.T.A. Nos.7105 to 7108/M/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-5-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR) For the Department : Shri M.K. Singh (DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition amounts to double taxation. Hence, the addition may be deleted. 7. The Assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the search was conducted in the case of M/s. JIK Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 04.02.2011. M/s. JIK Industries is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of crystal and handmade artistic glasses. M/s. Khayati Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. was also searched and subsequently notice u/s 153C of the I.T. Act. 1961 was issued to M/s. Khayati Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Khayati Sales Agency Pvt. Ltd. failed to file the return of income and also failed to file the reply in response to the notice u/s 153C of the Act. After providing the several opportunities, the assessment u/s 144/142(1) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, 1961 was passed on 28.02.2013 assessing total income to the tune of ₹ 11,32,195/-. Thereafter, the commissioner of Income Tax (C)-4, Mumbai initiated the provisions u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 04.03.2015. He observed that the huge money transactions are reflected in the assessee s bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd, account No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice dated 01.03.2016 which has been mentioned in para no. 7 of the assessment order. We also noticed that the assessee nowhere represented before the AO seeking any legal relief. In view of the discussed made above, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly recorded the finding on the legal issue which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee. ISSUE NOs. 3, 4 5 7. Issue nos. 3,4 5 are in connection with the confirming the addition of ₹ 2,34,52,668/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It is not in dispute by assessee maintained his bank account bearing no.143000020795 with HDFC bank Ltd. for the F.Y. 2005-06. The total credits for the year was of ₹ 2,44,29,863/-. The said amount was withdrawn immediately after the deposit. In the assessment order dated 28.02.2013, the AO treated the said deposit as commission of income of the assessee which was to the tune of ₹ 11,32,195/-. Thereafter, the provisions u/s 263 of the Act was invoked and assessment u/s 144/142(1) r.w.s. 153C of the Act was conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h JIK Industries Pvt. Ltd., nor authorized any person by name Mr. Dilip Shah to carry out any transaction on our behalf. The zerox copy of the affidavit is enclosed herewith. Thus the provisions of section 153(c) are not at all applicable. Under such circumstances we request you to give us the certified copy of the material seized by you having alleged and so called our involvement and also the alleged and so called copy of power of attorney given by us in favour of Mr. Dilip Shah. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR further contended that as per the tracking of the speed post/registered post, the reply of the appellant is set to has been delivered to the delivered to the DCIT. To support his contention, the Ld. AR also filed Xerox copy of tracking system. 6.3.5. I have considered the above submissions of the IA. AR and rind that even the Xerox copy of the tracking filed before me does not mention the name and designation of the concerned particular individual Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order dated 21.03.2016 i.e. the DCIT (Central)-8(1), Mumbai. In this regard it may be mentioned that it was fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on were reflected in the assessee's bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Limited- A/C No. 1432000020795 for FY 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 2008-09 i.e. AY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10. It is further seen that the amounts credited in bank account by cheque where immediately withdrawn. It is further seen that in the initial assessment order, the AO had treated the credit entry in the bank account as accommodation entry and rather than making full addition preferred to make addition @ 4% as commission income being earned for providing entries. The appellant has not made any submission that the amounts were not in the form of accommodation entry. The appellant has also not made any pleading regarding Peak Credit Theory. Under the circumstances, the arguments of the appellant with regard to the addition made by the AO are untenable and therefore liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO mounting to ₹ 2,34,52,668, ₹ 2,26,46,931, ₹ 6,71,79,381 ₹ 2,19,20,333 in the AYs 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 2009-10 respectively are upheld as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
