2017 (5) TMI 1100 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant's Challenges Dismissed for Lack of Evidence

Shri Naresh B. Vora Versus ACIT-CC-18 & 19, Mumbai

The appellant's challenges against additions on fictitious sales, treatment of unexplained credits in the balance sheet, and taxing of commission income ... Additions on the fictitious sales @ 4% - survey action u/s 133A - Held that:- CIT(A) on the basis of material placed before him granted substantial relief deleting a number of addition. Before us, the assessee neither filed any documentary evidence nor any written submission to substantiate his claims. We have seen that the learned CIT(A) sustained the various additions on the basis of the incriminating material found against the assessee in the survey action under section 133A conducted on 29.04.1998. Moreover, the assessee himself admitted that he was engaged in a hawala transactions. The ld CIT(A) passed the order after considering all the material available before him. The assessee despite availing a number of opportunities has not come forward to substantiate his version. Thus, in these circumstances, we do not find any good reason to interfere in the order passed by ld. CIT(A) - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:- Confirmation of additions on fictitious sales- Treatment of unexplained credits in balance sheet- Taxing commission income- Addition on account of opening balance in capital accounts- Discrepancy in tax calculation on cash receipts- Failure to substantiate claims and provide evidenceAnalysis:Confirmation of Additions on Fictitious Sales:The appellant contested the additions made on fictitious sales, arguing against the confirmation by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions on the basis of incriminating material from a survey action under section 133A. The appellant failed to provide evidence or substantiate their claims, leading to the rejection of their appeal.Treatment of Unexplained Credits in Balance Sheet:Regarding the unexplained credits in the balance sheet, the CIT(A) sustained the addition on sundry creditors and capital accounts. The appellant did not present any documentary evidence to support their position. The CIT(A) considered the material available and the admission of the appellant's involvement in hawala transactions, leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeal.Taxing Commission Income:The CIT(A) confirmed the taxing of commission income, which the appellant disputed. The appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence or written submissions to support their case. The CIT(A) made the decision based on available material and the appellant's admission of engaging in hawala transactions.Failure to Substantiate Claims and Provide Evidence:Throughout the proceedings, the appellant did not substantiate their claims or provide any documentary evidence. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellant did not present a compelling case to challenge the additions and decisions made by the CIT(A). This lack of evidence and failure to support their arguments led to the dismissal of the appeals for both assessment years.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented by the appellant, the decisions made by the CIT(A), and the reasons for dismissing the appeals.