SURENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 59(1), NEW DELHI

The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring income at Rs. 15,41,040/- on 21.08.2013, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto the authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed details as called for. The Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had claimed expenses relating to telephone, depreciation on car, insurance on car, conveyance & travelling expenses, vehicle repair & maintenance totaling to Rs. 5,23,301/-. The Assessing Officer made ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,04,660/- treating the same being personal in nature. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had taken unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 3,18,48,437/-, out of which loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- was received from Smt. Chameli Devi and Shri Rachit Jain respectively. A notice was issued to the assessee to prove genuineness of loan. In response thereto, the assessee filed his response, however, the Assessing

No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. It is seen from the record that despite various opportunities given, the assessee has not attended the hearing, nor any authorized representative in this regard. Notice of hearing sent to the assessee through speed post with acknowledgement due has been returned unserved with the postal remark “left”. Any change in address, has also not been furnished by the assessee. Under these facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

I have heard the learned Sr. DR, have gone through the material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. In my considered view the learned CIT(Appeals) has passed a well reasoned order in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee has not brought any material to rebut the Surender Jain Vs. ACIT same. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) in this regard. Accordingly, order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue in question is affirmed.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.