IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"H" Bench, Mumbai
Before Honourable Vice President Shri. D. Manmohan, & Shri Rajendra (AM)
ITA No. 1757/Mum/2011
(Assessment Year 2006-07)
Shri Suresh Henry Thomas Income Tax Officer-8(1)(2)
718-719, B Wing, Raheja Classique,
New Link Road, Mumbai
Oshiwar, Andheri(W),
Mumbai 400 061
PAN:-AAAPT4832B
Appellant Respondent
Date of Hearing: 26/03/2014
Date of Pronouncement: 26/03/2014
Assessee by: None
Department By. Pitamber Das
ORDER
Per Bench:
This appeal, filed at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the
order of Ld.CIT(Appeals)-16, Mumbai, and it pertains to A.Y. 2006-07.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds before us: -
"1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action
of Assessing Officer of adding a sum of Rs.12,89,720/- towards the cost of flat for want
of proof without considering the fact that the flat was purchased in the year 1998.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of
Assessing Officer of disallowing motor car expenses of Rs.31,572/- i.e. 20% of total
motor car expenses on the ground of personal use without considering the fact that the
same has been incurred for the purposes of business."
3. This appeal was posted for hearing on 05.02.2014 and notice was sent to
the assessee by registered post. However, the Bench having not functioned on
that date, the case was adjourned to 26.03.2014 and the new date of posting is
2
IT A N o . 1 7 5 7 / M / 2 0 1 1
announced through notice board. None appeared on behalf of the assessee
today; we therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal, qua assessee.
4. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. The
assessee is a Trader in Electronics goods. For the year under consideration, it
declared total income of Rs.1,61,311/-. During the course of scrutiny
proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee purchased flat for a
consideration of Rs.46,12,850/-. When asked to furnish the details of the date
of purchase, etc. it was submitted that he has purchased flat no.718 for a total
consideration of Rs.33,55,460/- whereas another flat i.e., flat No.719 is in the
name of Mrs. Olivia Thomas & Mr. H.M.S. Thomas and it was purchased for a
total consideration of Rs.12,89,720/-. On close scrutiny the AO came to the
conclusion that Flat No.719 was also purchased by the assessee and hence the
source of purchase has to be explained by the assessee. In the absence of
proper explanation, the AO added a sum of Rs.12,89,720/- as income from
other sources.
5. Learned CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing
as under:
"I have carefully considered the contention of the appellant and also carefully
gone through the documents as are available on record. I find that the appellant
has shown flat No.719 as its own assets in its personal balance sheet, therefore,
the same is to be considered as acquired during the year under consideration for
the amount shown against it. The appellant was not able to adduce any
evidences before the Ld. AO as to from where this asset was acquired. Under
`the circumstances, the Ld. AO was left no other option to except to treat the same
as unexplained investment and added under the head income from other
sources. The appellant also deliberately failed to attend the appellate
proceedings before me and also did not give any evidences to prove that the
investment is from known sources of income. Under the circumstances, I am left
no other option to except to confirm the addition made by the Ld. AO. This ground
of appeal failed and is accordingly dismissed."
6. The AO also noticed that the assessee claimed depreciation on motor car
which was used for personal as well as business purposes. Therefore,
estimated 20% of the total expenditure toward personal purposes, which works
3
IT A N o . 1 7 5 7 / M / 2 0 1 1
out to Rs.31,572/-. When called upon to explain as to whether the assessee
can justify that the expenditure was only for business purpose, there was no
response from the assessee and therefore, the AO disallowed a sum of
Rs.31,572/-.
7. Though an appeal was filed, learned counsel for the assessee did not
furnish any proof before the AO and the CIT(A) and thus, the action of the AO
was affirmed by the learned CIT(A) by observing that the assessee has not
furnished any evidence to prove that the motor vehicle is used for its business
purpose only.
8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us. No evidence was
furnished in the form of paper book or written submissions by the assessee.
Having carefully perused the record we are of the view that the order passed by
the learned CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, we dismiss
the appeal filed by the assesse.
9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed, as pronounced in the
Open court.
Sd/-
(RAJENDRA) Sd/-
Sd/-
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D. MANMOHAN)
VICE PRESIDENT
Mumbai; Dated : 26/3/2014
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
A.K.Patel
|
