M/S. Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9(2), Mumbai

suresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.316 OF 2016 M/S. Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-9(2), Mumbai .... Appellant .... Respondent Mr. Kunal Bhanage with Ms Vidhi Thaker i/by JurisMatrix for the Appellant.Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 P.C: 1. This appeal of the assessee challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench atMumbai, dated 25-3-2015, for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2.During the year under consideration, the assessee's return showed total loss of Rs.77,01,919/-. That was processed and an order was made on 28-12-2011, assessing the total Page 1 of 4 suresh 11-ITXA-316.2016.doc income at Rs.1,02,16,950/-. The six entities from whom theassessee borrowed sums without security were selected forscrutiny. It was found that though the Assessing Officer issuednotices to these entities under Section133(6) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short, "the I.T. Act"), he found there were noreply, or the notices returned unserved. Only one partyconfirmed the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is in these circumstances,the Assessing Officer doubted the transactions and made a verypertinent observation. He added back Rs.1,45,00,000/- to thetotal income of the appellant under Section 68 of the I.T. Act.This assessment so framed by him was confirmed by the FirstAppellate Authority. Even the Tribunal has confirmed it. 3.The assessee has brought this appeal urging thatthere are substantial questions of law and which are proposedby the assessee at page 19 of the paper-book. 4.After having heard Mr. Bhanage at great length andwith his assistance perusing the order under appeal, we do notagree with him. The Tribunal has extensively referred to the Page 2 of 4 suresh11-ITXA-316.2016.docentities and the details in relation thereto provided by theassessee. It concurred with the First Appellate Authority that theburden on the assessee has not been discharged by it. Theassessee cannot simply provide some details such as PermanentAccount Number, business address, the account which wasmaintained and a Bank Statement, or a Company's Master Datamaintained by the Registrar of Companies. The assessee isobliged to explain the surrounding circumstances and thebackdrop in which the transactions took place. In the case of fiveentities, the Tribunal referred to these details and concludedthat the assessee has failed to discharge the burden. More so,when three out of the five assessees could not be served. Therest did not either give a reply, or gave a reply which was not atall satisfactory. The reasons assigned from paras 5.2 to 5.5 of theorder under challenge do not suffer from such legal infirmity orperversity as would enable us to entertain this appeal. Theconcurrent findings of fact, therefore, are based on appreciationand appraisal of the evidence before the authorities. We cannottake a different view. All the more, when there are no errors of Page 3 of 4 suresh 11-ITXA-316.2016.doc law apparent on the face of the record, particularly inunderstanding the ambit and scope of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Digitally signedSureshby SureshJagdish SajnawatJagdishDate:Sajnawat2018.09.1915:19:39 +0530 Page 4 of 4