Bhupendra Shantilal Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
Facts- During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted substantial cash deposits totalling to Rs.96,25,414/- made in the assessee’s bank accounts during the demonetization period and other times during the financial year. The assessee claimed to have earned commission income of Rs.9,30,500/- in cash. However, no supporting documents, such as vouchers, invoices, or recipient details, were provided to establish the genuineness of this income, leading the AO to question its legitimacy.
Additionally, the AO observed that the assessee had unsecured loans amounting to Rs.1,42,45,240/- during the year, allegedly received from various parties. The AO issued multiple notices specifically requesting confirmations, PAN details, and bank statements of the lenders to verify their creditworthiness. However, the assessee’s responses were inadequate, and no credible evidence was furnished, prompting the AO to treat these loans as unexplained u/s. 68 of the Act.
Furthermore, the AO expressed concern over the assessee’s declared household expenses of only Rs.2,10,000/-. AO deemed this amount insufficient. In the absence of satisfactory explanations or justification, an additional amount was estimated and added to account for household expenses. Due to lack of compliance and failure to produce sufficient evidence, the AO made additions.
