TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee's appeal dismissed for unexplained furniture import expenditure under section 69C read with section 115BBE</h1> <h3>Mrs. Moureen Camara Versus National Faceless Appeal Centre [“NFAC”], Delhi And Mr. Melwyn Camara Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Panaji, Goa</h3> Mrs. Moureen Camara Versus National Faceless Appeal Centre [“NFAC”], Delhi And Mr. Melwyn Camara Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1), Panaji, Goa - ... Issues:1. Validity of sec.69C addition(s) in the case of Mrs. Moureen Camara and Mr. Melwyn Camara.2. Challenge to the validity of sec.148/147 proceedings and transfer of Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.3. Treatment of unexplained import expenditure addition(s) under sec.69C r.w.s.115BBE.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of sec.69C addition(s) in the case of Mrs. Moureen Camara and Mr. Melwyn CamaraThe appeals by the twin assessees contested the addition of Rs. 58,91,080 under sec.69C in the case of Mrs. Moureen Camara, linked to unaccounted imports added in Mr. Melwyn Camara's assessment. The contention was based on the Assessing Officer's action and the subsequent assessment in Mrs. Moureen Camara's hands. The Tribunal examined the common substantive ground challenging the addition, emphasizing the lack of recorded import expenditure in the books of account. The argument presented by the assessees regarding non-payment to the supplier and the need for further documentation was considered insufficient. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, highlighting the failure to provide satisfactory evidence supporting the import agreement conditions and the absence of a valid explanation for the unrecorded expenditure.Issue 2: Challenge to the validity of sec.148/147 proceedings and transfer of Assessing Officer's jurisdictionAlthough the assessees questioned the validity of sec.148/147 proceedings and the transfer of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction under sec.127 r.w.s.129 of the Act, these arguments were not pursued during the hearing. The Tribunal proceeded to address the substantive issue of sec.69C addition(s) raised by both assessees in their appeals.Issue 3: Treatment of unexplained import expenditure addition(s) under sec.69C r.w.s.115BBEThe Tribunal reviewed the NFAC's detailed discussion affirming the sec.69C r.w.s.115BBE addition made during the assessments. It emphasized the crucial fact that the import expenditure was not recorded in the books of account, raising questions about the plausibility of substantial imports from a China-based supplier without a documented business relationship. The Tribunal found the assessees' explanations lacking in credibility, citing legal precedents to support its decision. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the assessees' request to offset the custom duty component against the addition, as relief had already been granted in lower appellate proceedings and sec.69C proviso prohibited such adjustments.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the twin assessees and rejected their stay applications, affirming the lower authorities' decisions regarding the sec.69C addition(s) and custom duty component.---
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
