Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.02.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16.
Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the adhoc addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made by Assessing Officer in the Assessment order. On appeal the ld. Commissioner affirmed the said addition by concluding as under:-
“6.4. The A.O. also relied on the decision of Comet Handicarft vs. ACIT [2008] 114 TTJ 124 (ITAT Del.). The appellant submitted that it is a hospitality sector entity and has to spend on several items involving cash expenses. It is also submitted that books of accounts are audited and authentic. The submissions were considered. As per assessment order, total expenditure claimed on these 5 expenses is of Rs.2,83,47,620/-. Disallowance due to unverifiability of Rs.4,00,000/- which is 1.41% which is very reasonable and not capricious. Interference in the assessment order is not required. The ground is dismissed.”
The Assessee, being aggrieved by the Impugned order is in appeal before us. Though notice of hearing for today, i.e., 23.05.2022 was issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before us in order to prosecute its appeal, hence, we deem it appropriate to decide this appeal as ex-parte.
Heard the ld. DR and perused the orders passed by the authorities below. The said disallowance of Rs.4,00,000/- was made by the AO on adhoc basis on the ground that the amounts claimed under the expenses are neither fully vouched nor fully verifiable, so it cannot be said that the same are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer further observed that the Assessee could not provide call log details in the case of telephone expenses.
The Ld. Commissioner affirmed the said disallowance by holding “that expenditure claimed on five expenses is of Rs.2,83,47,620/- and disallowance due to un-verifiability is of Rs.4,00,000/- which is 1.41%, which is very reasonable and not capricious. We find that the Ld. Commissioner has passed the reasoned, logical and reasonable order for just decision of the case, after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the Assessee and determination made by the AO, even otherwise we do not find any reason and/or material to controvert the findings of the authorities below. Thus, the addition under challenge is sustained.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/05/2022