Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 28.03.2018 and pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-
“The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and passed the Order u/s 250 of IT Act, 1961 by upholding the adhoc addition/disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- as the Assessing Officer had assessed the Income of Rs. 6,36,380/- against the Returned Income of Rs. 4,36,380/-. The said order passed by the Ld CIT(A) is arbitrary and not founded on facts and against the canon of Justice. Grounds of Appeal No.1:- Adhoc Addition/Disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-:- The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding the adhoc addition/disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. All the expenses claimed were genuinely incurred by the assessee in pursuance of business and are eligible for 100% deduction as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 and duly reflected in the following:-
1) Audited Annual Accounts (Part of Profit and Loss Accounts) 2) Form 3CD in Tax Audit Report The order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is arbitrary and the said adhoc addititon/ disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- is prayed to be deleted in full as all the Expenses are incurred in pursuance of business. Grounds of Appeal
No.2 The assessee company had not received any Notice For Hearing which was Fixed at 26 March 2018 from the Office of the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad which is mentioned in CIT Appeal order U/S 250 paragraph 4 Dated 28/03/2018.Hence the Order Passed by the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) is arbitrary and against the Canon of Justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case the Assessing Officer passed a very brief order making an addition of Rs.2 lakh. The order of the Assessing Officer may be gainfully read as under:-
“Return was filed on 14.10.2014 by the assessee declaring income of Rs. 4,36,380/- which was processed U/s 143(1). The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS. The assessee is carrying on the business of advertising etc.. In response to the notices U/s 143(2) and 142(1) Shri Ansh Kumar Sharma CA attended on behalf of the assessee from time to time and case was discussed with him.
A notice U/s 142(1) was issued on 12.10.2015 requiring various details and documents/information from the assessee. The assessee has filed the written replies alongwith the required details, documents and Bank Statements which have been examined. The assessee has produced Books of Accounts consisting of ledgers, cash book and related vouchers which have been examined with reference to the documents/information filed by the assessee.
In the P & L A/c the assessee has claimed expenses under different heads out which an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is disallowed on account of unverifiable and inadmissible nature of expenses and added to the income of the assessee to which the counsel for the assessee has agreed upon. (Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-) After discussion total income is computed as under:- Returned income as show Rs.- 4,36,380/-
Addition on account of expenses as discussed above Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.-6,36,380/- 4. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) noted that several opportunities were given to the assessee but the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. On examination of merits of the case he found that the Assessing Officer disallowed expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- being unverifiable and inadmissible to which the assessee has agreed. He held that no appeal lies against agreed addition and no evidence of any mala fide or coercion has been proved by the assessee. Reliance was placed in this case as under:-
i. Sterlling Machine Tools (1980) 123 ITR 181 (All.) ii. Mahesh B. Shah vs ACIT (1998) (KER) and iii. CIT vs Vamadevan Bhanu (2011) 330 ITR 559 (Ker.)
Accordingly, she confirmed the Assessing Officer’s order.
Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard ld. DR and perused the record. None appeared for the assessee despite notices. Upon careful consideration, I note that the Assessing Officer in this case has made ad-hoc addition of Rs.2 lakhs which has been said to be agreed on the basis. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same by observing that no appeal lies against agreed addition. I note that the assessee has not made any submission before the Assessing Officer against such addition proposed by him. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has never availed the opportunities of being heard given to the assessee. Before ITAT also, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee for past several occasions. Moreover, as noted by the revenue authorities, the assessee had agreed to the above addition before the Assessing Officer. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th November, 2022.