Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: cpt :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: due date for vat payment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: empanelment
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

Mr. Pravin M. Choksey, C/o Viren P. Choksey, Krishna Villa, Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 Vs. The Dy. CIT (C) Circle-45, Mumbai
May, 22nd 2015
                 ,   ,  

  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH, MUMBAI

    .  ,                              ,    
                                            

          BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND

             SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


    / I.T.A. Nos. 1959, 1961 & 1962/Mum/2011
 (   / Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2005-06 & 2006-07
                    AND
      / I.T.A. No. 1960/Mum/2011
           (   / Assessment Years : 2004-05
Mr. Pravin M. Choksey, / The Dy. CIT (C)
C/o Viren P. Choksey,       Circle-45,
                        Vs.
Krishna Villa,              Mumbai
Linking Road,
Santacruz (W),
Mumbai-400 054
     . /   . /PAN/GIR No. : AAEPC 1292J
    ( /Appellant)      ..       (  / Respondent)
      / Appellant by:                         None
         /Respondent by:                      None


               / Date of Hearing
                                                     :13.05.2015
              /Date of Pronouncement :20.05.2015

                          / O R D E R


PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

     These four appeals by the assessee pertain to four different
assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2004-05
respectively. ITA Nos. 1959, 1961 & 1962/M/2011 pertain to levy of
                                        2                     Mr. Pravin M. Choksey


penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and ITA No. 1960/M/2011 is against the
order made u/s. 143(3) read with Sec. 153A of the Act. All these appeals
were heard together and dispose of by this common order for the sake of
convenience.

2.     First we take up the appeal against levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)
pertaining to A.Yrs 2002-03, 2005-06 & 2006-07. The Ld. CIT(A)-38,
Mumbai has disposed of these appeals by a common order dt.
31.12.2010.

3.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the income returned in
the original return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act was enhanced in the return
filed u/s. 153A of the Act subsequent to receiving the notice after the
search conducted on 5.10.2007. The additional incomes disclosed in the
returns filed u/s. 153A are as under:
                                    2003-03        2005-06         2006-07
       Income from Salary          Rs. 24,000/-    Rs. 88,000/-      -
       Income from Business        Rs. 71,218/-    Rs.1,02,218/-     -
       Income from Capital gains        -          (Rs.30,653/-)   Rs. 11,895/-
       Income from other sources   Rs. 46,757/-    Rs.1,57,775/-   Rs.2,46,261/-
               Total               Rs.1,41,975/-   Rs.3,17,359/-
Less   Deduction u/s. chapter VI- Rs. 8,913/-      Rs. 12,000/-
       A u/s. 80L
             Total                Rs.1,33,062/-    Rs.3,05,359/-   Rs.2,58,156/-


3.1.   The AO was of the firm belief that but for the search action against
the assessee, he would not have offered the additional incomes which are
made part of the returns of income filed u/s. 153A of the Act.




4.     Before the First Appellate authority, the assessee took the plea that
he was of the age of about 80 years suffering from Alzamiers disease and
because of his health condition he could not include certain incomes in
                                      3                      Mr. Pravin M. Choksey


the original return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It was further explained
that even the accountant have left the job. It was contended that the
penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.

5.    The Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reply made by the
assessee. While confirming the penalty order, the Ld. CIT(A) observed
that " the manner in which the assessee has not disclosed the correct
income in the returns of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act leads to a
inference that although the appellant was aware of the full particulars of
income, he had failed to submit returns of income by disclosing the entire
income earned by him under different heads of income."

6.    Aggrieved by this, the assessee is before us. None appeared on
behalf of the assessee inspite of the knowledge of the date of hearing. The
ld. DR filed written submission.

7.    We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and
the written submission filed by the DR. The assessment order is dt.
24.12.2009. When the assessee was a Managing Director of M/s.
Panchgani Health Resort Pvt. Ltd., from where he was drawing
remuneration. In addition to that he was also carrying out investment in
shares as well as commission from sale of motor car dealing. The order
of the First Appellate Authority is dt. 31.12.2010 and before the First
Appellate authority, the assessee took the plea of Alzamiers. There is
nothing on record to suggest that in the intervening one year, the assessee
was so ill that he forgot to disclose the complete details of his income.
After giving a thoughtful consideration to the facts on record, we are of
the considered opinion that if the search action had not been conducted,
the additional income disclosed in the return filed pursuant to the notice
issued u/s. 153A of the Act would not have been offered for the purpose
                                     4                   Mr. Pravin M. Choksey


of taxation by the assessee. We are therefore convinced that the assessee
has filed inaccurate particulars of income/premeditatedly concealed the
particulars of income for the years under consideration. We, therefore
decline to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Penalty levied
u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07 are
hereby confirmed. All these appeals are dismissed.

8.      In ITA No. 1960/M/2011 for A.Y. 2004-05 the assessee has
preferred the appeal against the addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- made by the
AO in respect of one vehicle owned by and belonging to Shri Rajnash
Bhel.    While scrutinizing the return of income for the year under
consideration, the assessee was asked to explain the bank credit entries on
23.5.2003 amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/-. The assessee filed following
explanation:
              "The above amount was received by a Demand Draft from
        Mr. Ketan Mehta of Seth Minaar, B Wing, 3rd floor opposite Jaslok
        Hospital, Pedder Road, Mumbai. As sale price of one vehicle
        bearing No. MZE 2002 belonging to Late Mr. Rajnash Bhel of
        Sagar Sangeet Bldg., Colaba. The vehicle was lying with me under
        repairs for long time since 2001 and unfortunately during this
        period Mr. Rajnash Bhel expired on 3rd August, 2004. I has
        informed his son Mr. Monish Bhel who due to our good relation
        have still not collected the same amount. Hence, the same lies
        deposited with me."

9.      This explanation of the   assessee did not find any favour with the
AO, who observed that after the sale of car and before the death of Shri
Rajnash Bhel and during the intervening period of 15 months, the
assessee did not pay the amount to Shri Rajnash Bhel. The AO further
observed that even till the date of assessment, the amount has not been
paid.    The AO treated Rs, 6,50,000/- as undisclosed income of the
assessee.
                                     5                     Mr. Pravin M. Choksey


10.   The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without
any success.




11.   Aggrieved by this the assessee is before us.       None appeared on
behalf of the assessee and the Ld. DR has filed a written submission.

12.   We have considered the written submission and given a thoughtful
consideration to the orders of the lower authorities. The main contention
of the assessee was that the vehicle belongs to Shri Rajnash Bhel, which
was sold and the sale consideration was credited in assessee's bank
account. No evidence has been filed in respect of this claim of the
assessee. Further, we find that the vehicle was sold in the year 2003. We
are in the year 2015. Even after a lapse of 12 years, there is nothing on
record to prove that the assessee has paid the amount to the legal heirs of
the deceased Rajnash Bhel.       As the assessee has grossly failed in
discharging the initial onus cast upon him to explain the source of deposit
in his bank account, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
findings of the Ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly confirm the addition of Rs.
6,50,000/- and dismiss assessee's appeal.

13.   In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

      Order pronounced in the open court on 20th May, 2015


               Sd/-                                     Sd/-
       (D.MANMOHAN )                            (N.K. BILLAIYA)
  /VICE PRESIDENT                / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

  Mumbai;  Dated :20 May , 2015
                    th


. ../ RJ , Sr. PS
                             6          Mr. Pravin M. Choksey


        /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

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - About Us

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions