ALPANA NOVELTIES MGF. CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5690/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no perversity or illegality. The application for additional evidence was disallowed, and the additions were confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income-tax return was selected for scrutiny, leading to additions for unexplained creditors and disallowance of expenses due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) affirmed these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of unexplained creditors and disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of TDS were justified, and if the assessee was entitled to produce additional evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 12.05.2022

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 02.06.2017, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Though various notices for the dates of hearinghave been issued to the Assessee, however, the Assessee could not be served on one or the other reasons. As it appears from the record, the notice issued for the date of hearing on 23.08.2021 was returned back by the postal department with the remarks “LENE SE MANA KIYA”, meaning thereby ‘refused to receive the notice’, hence, we are constrained to decide this appeal as ex-parte.

3.

The brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the Assessee company had e-filed its return of income on 31.03.2012 by declaring income of Rs.8,75,730/- which was selected for scrutiny through CASS and resulting into issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) on dated 07.08.2013 and making of an additions of Rs.43,79,891/- on account of creditor parties for not establishing their identity and genuineness and disallowance of partial expenses to the tune of Rs.2,38,090/- on account of non-deduction of TDS on payments made for expenses.

4.

The Assessee being aggrieved, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner who vide impugned order affirmed the same. Against the said affirmation, the Assessee is in appeal before us.

5.

Heard the Ld. DR who supported the impugned order. It reveals from the order impugned that with regard to the addition of Rs.43,79,891/-, the Assessee had filed an application for production of additional evidence u/r. 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short “the Rules”), which was disallowed by the ld. Commissioner and consequently, addition u/s. 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.43,79,891/- was upheld.

Further, with regard to addition of Rs.2,38,090/- on account of non-deduction of TDS on payments made for expenses, the ld. Commissioner while considering the peculiar facts that the Assessee has made categorical admission before the Assessing Officer for Page 2 of 4 non-deduction of tax at source qua repair and maintenance of plants and machinery, affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given by the by the Ld. Commissioner in affirmation of additions under consideration anddo not find any substance or reason or justification to controvert the findings of the Ld. Commissioner andto interfere with the impugned order, as the same does not suffer from any perversity, improprietyand/or illegality. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →