M/S. A & A ACCESSORIES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

1. The Assessee/appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal for adjudication: “ 1. That the various additions and disallowances made by the AO u/s 143(3) and upheld by the CIT(Appeals) are illegal and bad in law.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,26,438/- as undisclosed income on account of alleged expense made out of books of accounts on account of Negative Cash.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,14,440/- on account of payments made to M/s Om Textile.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the disallowance made by the AO in respect of expenses incurred with respect to printing and stationery of Rs 37,485, miscellaneous expenses Rs. 30,045/-, and repair and maintenance Rs. 1,44,245/-.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the disallowance made by the AO in respect of expenses incurred with respect to tour and travelling, and fair exhibition of amount of Rs. 2,38,207/- and Rs. 6,16,659/-, respectively, by wrongly attributing 10% of the total expenses to personal expenditure.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,32,720/- in respect of sundry creditors.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 9.73.395/-on account of alleged bogus liabilities/creditors.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the ITA No.-2614/Del/2017

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the disallowance made with respect to house tax of Rs. 70,356/- paid by the assessee in respect of IA, Summan Bazaar, Bhogal, New Delhi, whereas the said premises is being used for the business of the assessee.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the disallowance made with respect to vehicle fuel expenses of Rs. 1,59,531/- and vehicle repaid of Rs 20,963/- by wrongly attributing 1/8th of the said expenditure to personal expenditure.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred on law and on facts in upholding the disallowance made with respect to telephone and mobile expenses of Rs. 31, 365/- by wrongly attributing the said expenditure to personal expenditure.

That the CIT(Appeals) has erred in replying upon the order of his predecessor CIT(Appeals) dated 17.02.2009 even when the same stands set aside by the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.10.2009. 13. That the disallowances/additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and are based on mere ignorance of the material available on record. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record.

That the explanations given, evidence produced, material place and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions and disallowances made.

That without prejudice, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on account of personal use are highly excessive and cannot exceed 1-2% of the expenses in question.

That without prejudice, the addition made on account of Om Textile, Sundry creditor of Rs 3,32,720/-, sundry creditor of Rs 9,73,395/- are brought forward opening balances of previous

That the interest u/s 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the additions and disallowances as there is no default of advance tax. In any case, the interest charged u/s 234B is also excessive.

That without prejudice to each of the above mentioned grounds of appeal and in the alternative, the AO has erred in making overlapping additions based on alleged shortage of cash in hand and alleged bogus payments to the creditors and the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same.

That the assessee craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return declaring taxable income of Rs. 28,45,310/- on 31.10.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completing u/s 143)3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at an income of Rs 91,62,330/- after making various additions / disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Learned CIT(A), which was partly allowed vide impugned order. 3. In the present proceedings before us, the matter was fixed for hearing on 09th July, 2025, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no any adjournment sought for on behalf of the appellant. On verification and perusal of the earlier order sheets, it ITA No.-2614/Del/2017