Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2006- 07 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-15, Delhi dated 04.02.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (A.O.) in utter disregard of the Principles of Natural Justice are unjustified, erroneous, illegal and need to be summarily deleted.
2. That the Addition of Rs. 4,49,486/- made by Ld. A.O. on account of disallowance of Job Work Expenses has been wrongly and illegally made and needs to be deleted.
3. That the Addition of Rs. 5,40,529/- made by Ld. A.O. on account of unconfirmed creditors has been wrongly and illegally made and needs to be deleted.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. erroneously made double additions of Rs. 1,64,611/- i.e. (the Ld. A.O. disallowed the total job charges of Rs. 3,36,022/- of M/s Noble Craft and then again added back (disallowed) Rs. 1,64,611/- which 1 | P a g e was outstanding credit balance of Noble Craft after deducting the payments made to it from the total job charges of Rs. 3,36,022/-. So this double additions has been wrongly and illegally made and needs to be deleted.
That the order was passed by the Ld. A.O. with a biased approach without application of mind and in gross disregard to the actual and material evidences on record.
6. That the CIT(Appeals)-15, Delhi has erred in facts and law in confirming the illegal orders of the A.O.
7. That the aforesaid grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to one another.
8. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein above either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that various opportunities were given to the assessee but there is no representation made on behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing sent through Speed Post by the Registry was returned back unserved by the Postal Authority with remark “no such person”. The assessee has not provided any other address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.
3. The only effective ground raised by the assessee is against the addition of Rs.5,40,529/- made by the AO on account of unconfirmed creditors and disallowance of job work expenses of Rs.4,49,486/-.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.18,41,093/- on 30.11.2006. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was framed vide order dated 19.12.2008 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). While framing the assessment, the AO made disallowance of job work on the basis that same was not confirmed by the concerned parties and also made addition in respect of the creditors. Hence, total addition of Rs.9,90,015/- was made, assessing total loss of Rs.8,51,080/-.
5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue, heavily placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee grossly failed to substantiate his claim of expenditure and sundry creditors. He submitted that it was incumbent upon the assessee to prove the expenditure incurred by him. The assessee has grossly failed to do so. Further, in respect of the creditors, despite various opportunities, no confirmation was received from the parties therefore, the AO was justified in making the additions.
I have heard the contention of Ld.Sr.DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:-
4. “Decision: The contention of the Appellant has been considered and the order of AO has also been perused. The main contention of the appellant is that proper TDS has been deducted. The Appellant filed complete details of Job Work Expenses containing name of Party, their address and their PAN No. and amount. Further the Appellant also filed copies of TDS Certificates issued to the said parties. As regards, the Sundry Creditors, the Appellant filed Complete Address, PAN No. and other details of all the Major Creditors and also TDS Certificates issued to one creditor namely Shallu Enterprises. During the course of appellate proceedings, the submissions made by the appellant were sent for the remand of the AO. The AO has submitted two remand reports dated 15.09.2011 & 13.05.2014. In both the reports, the AO has submitted that summons were issued to the concerned parties, but the same were not complied with. In report dated 15.09.2011, the AO has further reported that the AR of the assessee was also unable to produce the parties in person. Even if the contentions of the AR regarding the paper work are concerned, the paper work in this case is though complete from the assessee's point of view, however, the physical verification could not be done as none of the parties responded. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO and accordingly, the addition of RS. 9,90,015/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.”
One of the contentions before Ld. CIT(A) was that the AO in the case of Noble Craft has made double addition as the AO has disallowed job work, expenses of Rs.3,36,022/- and also made an addition in respect of the creditors of Noble Craft of Rs.1,64,611/-. I find that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adverted this contention. From the submissions made before the Authorities below, it is quite evident that this amount was considered twice. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,64,611/- is hereby, deleted and rest of the addition is sustained as the assessee has not brought any supporting evidences before this Tribunal. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th July, 2022.