Case Law Details
Jignesh Chimanlal Jobanputra Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The case of Jignesh Chimanlal Jobanputra Vs Income Tax Officer (ITO) at ITAT Mumbai revolves around the dispute concerning income tax additions, specifically focusing on unsecured loans and unexplained investments for the assessment year 2011-12. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), or CIT(A), played a significant role in this legal battle, which eventually reached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai.
The appellant, an individual proprietor of M/s. Manav Display engaged in manufacturing display items, initially filed a return of income for AY 2011-12, reporting a loss of Rs.7,96,993. However, the assessing officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information regarding alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.15,51,506. During reassessment, the AO observed investments in immovable property totaling Rs.52,23,570, sourced from withdrawals from the proprietary concern and loans from parties.
The crux of the dispute lies in the treatment of a loan of Rs.31,89,681 obtained from four parties. The AO, due to lack of sufficient documentation, treated the loan as non-genuine and made additions under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the CIT(A), arguing both on merit and on legal grounds.
However, the appellant’s failure to appear before the CIT(A) led to the dismissal of the appeal, with the CIT(A) confirming the AO’s additions. The appellate proceedings lacked the appellant’s cooperation, further weakening the appellant’s case. Despite the legal contention that the addition under section 69 was erroneous, the ITAT emphasized the necessity of substantiating the genuineness of transactions, rather than merely disputing the section under which additions were made.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
