Case Number: ITA 1555/DEL/2020
Appellant: Mukesh Kumar Joshi, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO WARD – 41(4), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Result: 2013-14
Case Filed On: 2020-09-08
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-02-16
Pronounced On: 2023-02-16
The case of Mukesh Kumar Joshi vs ITO Ward-41(4), New Delhi pertains to the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The appeal was filed by Mukesh Kumar Joshi challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-41(4), New Delhi. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi SMC bench, adjudicated the appeal.
Mukesh Kumar Joshi, the appellant, filed his return of income online, declaring an income of Rs. 2,18,100 on 31st March 2014. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the appellant was engaged in trading food grains and acting as a commission agent through his proprietary firms M/s. Joshi Enterprises and M/s. Jai Bholey Trading Co. The AO observed that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 96,12,771 and Rs. 7,33,672, totaling Rs. 1,03,46,443 in his bank accounts during the year.
The AO further noticed that the appellant had made various transactions amounting to Rs. 50,49,57,811 in deposits and Rs. 50,43,80,268 in withdrawals. Despite multiple opportunities provided to the appellant, he failed to file the Profit and Loss (P&L) account and other supporting documents. Consequently, the AO proceeded to estimate the profit at Rs. 5,09,615 on account of consignment sales or entry transactions of Rs. 24,73,056 and interest of Rs. 37,883, resulting in a total assessed income of Rs. 33,38,650.
Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, confirming the addition of Rs. 7,70,256 in respect of consignment sales but sustaining the other additions, including the estimated profit of Rs. 5,09,615 and the interest.
The ITAT Delhi SMC bench, consisting of Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member, heard the case on 2nd February 2023. The appellant did not attend the proceedings, and notices sent through speed post were returned unserved. Despite multiple opportunities, no representative appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The ITAT reviewed the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and elaborately discussed the issues in the impugned order. The appellant failed to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) by providing any contrary material. Therefore, the ITAT saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s findings and affirmed the same.
In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi SMC bench dismissed the appeal filed by Mukesh Kumar Joshi. The addition of Rs. 5,09,615 on account of consignment sales or entry transactions and interest of Rs. 37,883 was upheld. The appellant’s failure to attend the proceedings and provide the necessary documents resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 16/02/2023:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Signatures:
(Kul Bharat) – Judicial Member
Dated: 16th February 2023
Copy forwarded to:
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, New Delhi
Mukesh Kumar Joshi vs ITO Ward-41(4), New Delhi for AY 2013-14: Cash Withdrawal Treated as Sales
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform