2022 (7) TMI 483 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal upholds unexplained investment & expenditure disallowance under Income Tax Act

Kotari Srinivasa Rao Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's treatment of Rs. 3,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ... Unexplained investment u/s. 68 - assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the investment - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the records, that the assessee is given many opportunities for pursuing his case, but the assessee failed to comply with the notices given and appear before the Tribunal. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee is not willing to pursue his case and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Issues:1. Assessment of unexplained investments under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.2. Disallowance of expenditures due to lack of proper documentation.3. Revision of assessment under section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.4. Appeal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.Analysis:1. The appellant, an individual engaged in trading chemical products, filed a return of income for A.Y. 2014-15, declaring total income of Rs. 6,39,630. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted credits of Rs. 93,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 against different entities. The appellant failed to provide satisfactory confirmations for these amounts. The AO treated Rs. 3,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 68. Additionally, the AO disallowed Rs. 5,00,000 of claimed expenditures due to lack of proper documentation, resulting in a total income assessment of Rs. 14,39,630 with a net demand of Rs. 2,78,030.2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax revised the assessment under section 263, directing the AO to re-examine the genuineness and existence of the entities involved, along with other relevant details. The appellant challenged this order on various grounds, including the limitation period, the alleged lack of prejudice to the department's interests in the original assessment, and the absence of proper basis for the revision. The appellant also argued that the explanation submitted was not duly considered. However, the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal despite multiple opportunities.3. The Tribunal noted the appellant's non-compliance with notices and appearances, indicating a lack of willingness to pursue the case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was dismissed on 28th June, 2022, due to the appellant's failure to engage in the proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the assessment of unexplained investments, disallowance of expenditures, revision under section 263, and the subsequent appeal proceedings, highlighting the key aspects of the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM.