VIRENDER MOHAN CHOPRA,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), GURGAON

Before we proceed to decide the appeal, it is necessary to observe that for the first time, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 01.09.2021. However, since the assessee was absent on that date, the appeal was adjourned to 28.10.2021. Thereafter, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 27th December 2021 and 24th February 2022, however, on none of these dates assessee appeared for hearing of the appeal.

When the appeal was called for hearing today, no one was present for the assessee to represent the matter. It is relevant to observe, the proceedings of the Bench on 28.10.2021, 27.12.2021 and 24.02.2022 have been uploaded in the official website of the Tribunal. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing of the appeal. The aforesaid factual position clearly reveals complete lack of interest of the assessee in pursuing the present appeal.

Considering the fact that the appeal is pending for more than four years and the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity to represent his case, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.

Grounds raised by the assessee are argumentative and not in accordance with the rules. Be that as it may, as could be seen from the grounds raised, the dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.26,69,289 on account of unexplained sundry creditors.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a registered company. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.21,58,730. In course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown large amount of sundry creditors outstanding at the end of the year. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to call for confirmation of all the creditors above Rs.3,00,000. As observed by the Assessing Officer, assessee could file confirmation from few parties. On perusal of the confirmations, he noticed that very nominal amount of payment have been made to the creditors and most of the cheques given to the creditors have bounced and the amount remained outstanding till date. Further, to independently verify the genuineness of the creditors, Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act. However, there was no response to such notices. Thus, looking at the unverifiable nature of the creditors, their genuineness could not be established. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of the outstanding sundry creditors appearing in the balance sheet. Resultantly, he added back an amount of Rs.72,48,273 to the income of the assessee. Assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Based on the submissions made and the remand report of the Assessing Officer, learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.26,69,289.

We have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.

Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% out of the outstanding balance of the sundry creditors appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee.

Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee had produced certain additional evidences based on which a remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. After perusing remand report and the material available on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that all sundry creditors except one viz. Rajiv Kumar Kapil Kumar Jain were verified and found correct.

In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals).

In the result, appeal is dismissed.