2019 (11) TMI 1135 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - payment of interest to bank which the assessee has mentioned in the profit and loss account - HELD THAT - The revenue authorities have noticed that a loan (liability) against which the assessee has claimed interest and the Assessee has further given interest free loan to his daughter Ms. Mehak Gandhi meaning thereby that assessee has claimed interest expenses of borrowed capitals and by giving interest free advances to his daughter. In my view this not for business purposes. Assessee has claimed before the revenue authorities by not filing any documentary evidence, therefore, fully agree with the reasons mentioned by the revenue authorities especially the Ld. First Appellate Authority for confirming the addition on account of interest on loan. Hence, no interference is called for in the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute, therefore, I uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the assessee. Addition on account of credit card payment - Expenses on ICICI Credit Card and the credit facility from Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. was transferred by the assessee to his capital account. Since the assessee has himself capitalized these amounts by transferring the same to his capital account without crediting the same in the profit and loss account. Impugned order passed by the FAA AO has rightly made the addition in dispute and Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same on the basis of the documentary evidences produced by the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is rejected. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment year 2013-14.
2. Non-appearance of Assessee during hearings.
3. Assessment details including income, capital receipts, and expenses.
4. Addition of interest payable to the bank.
5. Addition of credit card payment.
6. Addition of unexplained cash credit.
7. Disallowance of expenses on fixed assets.

Analysis:

1. Appeal against CIT(A) Order:
The appeal was filed against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessee raised multiple grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision, including rejection of claims related to interest payable to the bank and credit card payments.

2. Non-Appearance of Assessee:
Despite multiple hearing notices, the Assessee did not appear or request an adjournment. The Tribunal decided to proceed ex parte due to the lack of response from the Assessee and absence of any new address provided.

3. Assessment Details:
The Assessee's return of income, scrutiny selection, and details of business activities were reviewed. Various discrepancies were noted, such as uncredited capital amounts, interest claims, and expenses on fixed assets, leading to additions and penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO).

4. Addition of Interest Payable to Bank:
The AO added an amount of interest payable to the bank in the Assessee's income, considering the unexplained nature of the transactions involving borrowed funds and interest-free advances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm this addition, citing lack of documentary evidence provided by the Assessee.

5. Addition of Credit Card Payment:
Another addition was made for credit card payments not reflected in the profit and loss account but transferred to the capital account. The Tribunal agreed with the AO's decision to include this amount in the Assessee's income, as confirmed by the CIT(A) based on documentary evidence.

6. Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit:
The AO questioned unexplained cash credits related to loans and advances, leading to additions under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal supported the AO's findings and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on these matters.

7. Disallowance of Expenses on Fixed Assets:
Discrepancies in expenses related to fixed assets were identified, including disallowed depreciation on allegedly bogus bills. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for non-compliance with tax regulations, resulting in an overall assessment of the Assessee's taxable income.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order and decisions made by the revenue authorities based on the assessment details and documentary evidence presented during the proceedings. The Assessee was given the option to move an application for restoration of the appeal under specified rules if aggrieved by the decision.

← Previous Next →