GORDON HERBERT INDIA LTD,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-27, New Delhi dated 07.12.2018 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:

“The assessee has not been given proper opportunity to present the facts of the case. The addition of Rs. 9,09,675 is made without any basis or justification as no claim of expenditure has been made by the assessee. The CIT(A) has misunderstood the facts of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2002 which had detail of expenses as on 31.03.2001 and no expense on freight and forwarding has been claimed in that. The order is illegal and against

Gordon Herbert India Ltd. Vs. ACIT facts of the case and bad at law. An assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal and basic facts on record have been completely ignored. The addition of Rs. 9,09,675 is arbitrary and without any legal base ad deserves to be deleted.” 2. Facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that action u/s 132 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was carried out by the Revenue in Usha Group of cases including the assessee company on 14.02.2001 and various books of accounts/ documents etc. were found and seized. Thereafter a notice u/s 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee calling upon the assessee company to file its return of income in respect of block assessment year. The return for block period was filed and assessment for block period up to assessment year 2001-02 (upto 14.02.2001) was completed and assessment was framed at Rs. 12,34,40,142/- .

Before Assessing officer there was no representation on behalf of the assessee and the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act for the period from 15.02.2001 to 31.03.2001 at Rs. 9,09,680/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Gordon Herbert India Ltd. Vs. ACIT address was provided by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material placed on record.

“5. I have considered the facts of the case, written submissions of the appellant the findings of the Assessing officer in this assessment order. 5.1 In this case, assessment u/s 158BC/245/143(3) has been completed for the Block period from 1.4.1990 to 14.02.2001. The AO observed that the appellant has not filed the return of income from 15.02.2001 to 31.03.2001. No return or computation was filed by the appellant for the period under consideration and it simply submitted that assessment proceedings may be deferred in view of pendency of writ petition filed by the appellant before High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, the AO after giving final opportunity passed the assessment order u/s 144 for the period 15.02.2001 to 31.03.2001 (A.Y. 2001-02) by making additions on account of disallowance of proportionate expenses (on account of purchases and freight & forwarded expenses) on the basis of block assessment. 5.2 The appellant has not filed any return of income or its balance sheet and P & L Account for the period under consideration (15.02.2001 to 31.03.2001), but has just filed a balance sheet and P & L account as on 28.02.2001. In the absence of any details filed by the appellant to substantiate his claim, I have been left with no alternative, except to uphold the ex-parte assessment order of the Assessing Officer confirming the addition of Rs.9,09,675/- made on pro rata basis as per the assessment order of block assessment. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is Gordon Herbert India Ltd. Vs. ACIT dismissed.” 6. The assessee before this Tribunal has not filed any evidence in support of its claim. Therefore, in the absence of the relevant evidences the claim of the assessee cannot be sustained. Hence, we do not see any merit in the ground of the assessee’s appeal and the same is hereby rejected.