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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1201, Brookhill Tower Lokhandwala Complex Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 Vs. ITO, Ward-8(3)(4) Mumbai
June, 05th 2015
   ,  , ,,, 

         .  . ,  ,  
     Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and
          Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member

                ITA NO.4996/Mum/2013
               Assessment Year: 2005-06

Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd.                ITO, Ward-8(3)(4)
1201, Brookhill Tower         /        Mumbai
Lokhandwala Complex
Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053   Vs.
      / Appellant                          / Respondent
                                          P.A. No.AAACZ1674Q

    / Revenue by                 Shri N.V. Nadkarni

    / Assessee by                Shri R.C. Modi

   / Date of Hearing                        27/5/2015

    /Date of Order:                         04 /6/2015

                        / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member)

     This appeal is by the assessee for the assessment year
2005-06, directed against the impugned order dated 28 th May
                                 2                Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd.

2013, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-18, Mumbai.

2.    The first ground raised by the assessee pertains to
upholding the entire cash deposited in the Banks amounting to
Rs.52,13,000, u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
"the Act"). The crux of the argument advanced by Shri R.C.
Mody, learned Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee
fulfilled the ingredients of section 68, therefore, the addition was
wrongly affirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals). It was pleaded that the assessee having a domestic
sale, which was in cash and if the audited accounts are accepted
by the Department, then how the sale can be discarded. On the
other hand, the learned D.R., Mrs. N.V. Nadkarni, defended the
conclusion drawn in the impugned order by submitting that
there was no evidence of source of cash deposit, thus, onus has
not been discharged by the assessee and even no documentary
evidence was produced by the assessee at any stage, therefore,
the addition was rightly made.

2.1   We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record. If the observation made in the
assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income,
conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on
record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsels, if kept in
juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that the amount of
Rs.52,13,000, was found deposited in cash in two current bank
accounts of the assessee. On asking by the Assessing Officer,
                                 3               Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd.

the assessee did not furnish any details with respect to source of
such cash deposits in the bank account. Even on questioning by
the Bank with respect to the sales details, the assessee
contended that no such details are available with him. Even the
day-to-day details of cash book were also never produced by the
assessee right from the assessment stage. The learned Counsel
merely contended that estimation of income may be made. We
are not agreeing with this suggestion of the learned Counsel for
the assessee, because the amounts were deposited in cash on
various dates. In Vijaya Bank, the total cash deposited was
Rs.49,45,000, and in the Indian Overseas Bank, the cash
deposited was Rs.2,68,000. The requirement of section 68 of the
Act, is that the assessee has to prove the source of sum found
with the assessee and nature of source has to be satisfactorily to
be explained by the assessee itself. If the explanation of the
assessee is an unsatisfactory, it may be treated as income of the
assessee. The law is well settled that onus of proving the source
is upon the assessee only. Our view find support from the
decisions from Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshan Di Hatti v/s CIT,
107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v/s CIT, 50 ITR
1 (SC), Sumati Dayal v/s CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), Kamal Motors
v/s CIT, 131 Taxman 155 (Raj.), ratio laid down in Nemichand
Kothari v/s CIT, 136 Taxman 212 (Gauwahati), CIT v/s R.S.
Rathore, 212 ITR 390 (Raj.), CIT v/s Korlay Trading Company
Ltd., 232 ITR 820 (Cal.). Since the assessee has not satisfactorily
explained the source of cash, therefore, we find no justification
to interfere with the uncontroverted findings contained in the
                                   4                  Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd.

impugned order, therefore, this ground of the assessee is having
no merit, consequently, dismissed.

3.    The next ground pertains to upholding the addition of
Rs.5,95,422, as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

3.1   The crux of the argument is identical to the ground raised
by submitting that the addition has been made on the basis of
tax audit report which was wrong. On the other hand, the
learned D.R. defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned

3.2   We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record. The facts in brief are that on a
perusal of the tax audit report, Column no.23, the Assessing
Officer observed that the ass advanced loan to Shri Faizal A.
Khan,    director   of   the   Company,   in   cash     amounting         to
Rs.11,98,122. The Assessing Officer found that as per bank
account of the assessee with the Indian Overseas Bank, there
was cash withdrawn of Rs.6,00,000, but there was no cash
withdrawal from Vijaya Bank. However, as per the audit report,
the assessee paid a cash loan to Shri Faizal A. Khan, amounting
to Rs.11,98,122. The assessee did not explain the source of cash
loan, therefore, the amount of Rs.5,95,422 (Rs.11,98,122 ­
Rs.6,02,700) was treated as unexplained investment u/s 68 of
the Act. We note that right from the assessment stage, no
documentary evidence was produced by the assessee and merely
claimed that the relevant bills / vouchers were lost while shifting
                                 5               Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd.

the office. Even before us, no documentary evidence was
produced. There is uncontroverted finding that as per tax audit
report the assessee gave cash loan of Rs.11,98,122, whereas the
assessee withdrew only Rs.6 lakhs in cash from his bank
account. Thus, the remaining amount of Rs.5,95,422, was
rightly   treated   as   unexplained   investment.   The     learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has already mentioned
the decision in the case of CIT v/s Jayalaxmi Devarajan, 286 ITR
412 and Third member decision of the Chandigarh Tribunal in
the case of Baldev Krishan Kapoor v/s ACIT. Even otherwise, the
ratio laid down in Sanjay v/s CIT, 154 Taxman 101 (M.P) and
Century Foam Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 210 ITR 625 (All.) further
supports the case of the Revenue. This ground of the assessee
is, therefore, also having no merit, consequently, dismissed.

4.   The last ground with respect to disallowance of expenses.
This ground was not pressed by the learned Counsel for the
assessee and, therefore, the ground is dismissed.

     Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

     This order was pronounced in the open Court in the
presence of learned Representatives from both the sides at the
conclusion of the hearing on 4th June 2015.

                  Sd/­                               Sd/­
            (N.K. Billaiya)                    (Joginder Singh)

  Mumbai;  Dated : 04/06/2015

                                     6             Zelig Exports Pvt. Ltd.

 .  / Pradeep J. Chowdhury
   / Sr. Private Secretary

    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.    / The Appellant
2.    / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT, Mumbai.
4.      / CIT(A)-         , Mumbai
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 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
System Testing Solution Manual Software Testing Solutions Automation Software Testing Solutions System Workflow Testing System Manual Testing

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