Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala H.U.F, Mumbai vs Assessee

नधा रती क ओर से / Assessee by None राज व क ओर से / Revenue by Smt. Heena Singh Pandey - CIT -DR

सुनवाई क तार ख / 09/03/2015 Date of Hearing : घोषणा क तार ख / 13/03/2015 Date of Pronouncement :

आदे श / O R D E R

PER JOGINDER SINGH (Judicial Member):

All these appeals are by the assessee for different assessment years challenging the impugned consolidated order

2 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

dt.27/10/2010 of the ld. First appellate authority, confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income tax Act 1961, (hereinafter the Act) and further in confirming the total sales as unexplained income of the assessee as detailed in the respective appeals and further making disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act holding that the purchases made by the assessee were in excess of Rs.20,000/-, made in cash of the respective assessment years.

2. During hearing of the appeals, Nobody was present for the assessee whereas Mrs. Heena Singh Pandey, ld. CIT-DR was present for the revenue . We note that on 24/8/2013 nobody was present for the assessee, therefore, registered AD notice was sent to the assessee. On 12.12.2013, these appeals were adjourned to 12.2.2014. at the request of the assessee. On 3.6.2014, at the request of the assessee adjournment was made for 22.7.2014. On that date also nobody was present for the assessee , thus, the appeal was adjourned to 16.9.2014 as last opportunity. On that date also, at the request of the assessee the appeal was adjourned to 11/11/2014 . On that day also none represented the assessee and thus again last opportunity was granted and the appeal was adjourned to 15/1/2015. Again the assessee requested for adjournment and the Bench granted last opportunity for 9/3/2015. Today at the time of hearing again nobody represented the assessee . Thus, we are constrained to proceed ex-parte qua the assessee and tend to dispose off these appeals on the basis of material available on record. The ld. CIT- DR contended that even before the Assessing Officer the assessee never co-operated and finally ex-parte assessment u/s.

3 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

144 of the Act was framed. Likewise, before the ld. First appellate authority the assessee did not file necessary details, that too, inspite of repeated opportunity, therefore, the assessee is a habitual offender. The conclusion drawn in the impugned order was defended.

3. We have perused the record and considered the submission of the ld. CIT-DR. We find that a search and survey action u/s. 132 and 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of Sudhir Jhunjhunwala Group and his Associates on 13.3.2008. The residential and office premises of the directors and other members of the group were searched. Notice u/s. 153A was issued on 3.11.2008 to which the assessee did not file return within the specified time, therefore, notice u/s. 271F was issued for non-filing of return on 28.7.2009. Ultimately, final opportunity was granted vide letter issued on 6.10.2009. Notice u/s. 142(1) along with annexure was served upon the assessee . There was no compliance by the assessee . On one occasion the assessee attended but did not file any return. Inspite of so many opportunities/notices the assessee neither filed its return nor filed the requisite details. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. It was found that the assessee group was dealing in textile trading business and most of the transactions were made in cash. The relevant details are available in para 5.1 and other paras onwards of the respective assessment order. The Assessing Officer made the additions/disallowances as unexplained income and further u/s.40A(3) of the Act, which are summarised as under :-

4 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

Assessment Year Addition made Disallowance as made unexplained u/s.40A(3) income(Rs.) (Rs.) 2002-03 5,45,600 92,020 2003-04 5,90,100 1,00,070 2004-05 6,75,500 1,06,025 2005-06 6,90,830 1,08.104 2006-07 6,74,970 1,04,440 2007-08 6,98,940 1,12,345 2008-09 7,68,834 1,23,579

3.1 The ld.AO examined the seized material /impounded material and also on the basis of available record he made the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on the reasoning contained para 5.1 of the assessment order by concluding that the assessee group was indulging in unexplained cash purchases/sales.

4. On appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the additions/disallowances made in the respective assessment orders were challenged. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the facts and unfortunately same situation happened as the assessee simply sought adjournment and did not file the necessary details. The relevant discussion has been made in para 2.3 onwards. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"2.3.1. I have carefully and dispassionately considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant 5 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

has not been attending to notices and opportunities given to them as discussed by the Assessing Officer on page 1 and 2 of the impugned assessment order. Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.153A on 3/11/2008, u/s.271F on 28/7/2009. Opportunity letter on 4/8/2009, second opportunity letter on 6/10/2009 and then notice u/s.142(1) on 9/11/2009. Unfortunately, the appellant never attended before the Assessing Officer on the due dates of hearing as mentioned in para 2 of the impugned assessment order. The appellant is not able to furnish the requisite details before the appellate authorities as well. First notice in ITNS 37 was issued on 26/2/2010 fixing the case for hearing on 31/3/2010. Ld. AR sought an adjournment vide letter dated 31/3/2010 and the appeal was adjourned on 30/4/2010. Second adjournment letter was filed on 30/4/2010 and the appeal was adjourned to 25/5/2010. Nobody attended on 25/5/2010 and another opportunity was given to the appellant. Ld. AR furnished third adjournment letter vide letter dated 8/6/2010 and the appeal was adjourned to 29/6/2010. Fourth adjournment letter was furnished by letter dated 18/6/2010 and the appeal was adjourned to 7/7/2010 at 10.30 A.M. Fifth letter of adjournment was furnished on 6/7/2010 and on Ld. AR's request appeal was adjourned to 5/8/2010 at 11.30 A.M. Sixth letter of adjournment was furnished on 4/8/2010 and on their request last and final adjournment was granted to the appellant for furnishing final written submission on 27/8/2010 at 10.30 A.M. Ld. AR vide their seventh letter 6 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

of adjournment dated 26/8/2010 requested for another adjournment and the appeal was again fixed for hearing on 8/9/2010. On 8/9/2010 Ld. AR Sri J.P. Bairagra, FCA attended but could not furnish any details because he was not having the requisite details with him because of various reasons as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Appeal was adjourned to 22/9/2010 at his request. Ld. AR vide their letter eighth letter of adjournment dated 20/9/2010 requested for another adjournment and on their request last and final hearing was granted to the appellant on 12/10/2010 for final argument. Ld. AR Shri Jaidev, Advocate and partner of M/s. M.L. Bhuwania & Co. attended and again no details could be furnished. Again, on his request last and final opportunity was granted to the appellant and their Ld. ARs for final argument on 27/10/2010. Nobody attended on the last and final date of hearing. Ld.AR did not attend the hearing and the appeal is decided on the basis of written submissions, statement of facts and material available in the appellate folder;"

4.1 We note that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) duly examined the facts u/s. 68 along with various case laws as discussed in para 2.3.4 and finally affirmed the additions as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act by examining each assessment year separately. We are satisfied with the reasoning contained in the impugned order under the facts and the circumstances available on record. We have also examined the material available on record and considered the 7 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

submissions of ld. CIT-DR. before us also the attitude of the assessee is same as the assessee merely filed the appeals and neither filed necessary details nor represented its case and inspite of repeated final opportunities. Today, as mentioned earlier the assessee even did not bother to attend the proceedings or to seek adjournment. In the totality of the facts, material available on record, attitude of the assessee it clearly oozes out that the assessee has nothing to say in his defence. Thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), consequently all these appeals are having no merit, therefore, dismissed.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 13/03/2015.

आदे श क घोषणा दनांकः 13/03/2015 को क गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मब ुं ई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 13/03/2015 JV, Sr. P.S./ व. न.स. 8 Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala

आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ंु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स या पत त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई / ITAT, Mumbai