Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's partner suffered from serious health issues, leading to a delay in filing the appeal and non-compliance with procedural requirements before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the genuine health issues of the assessee's partner. However, it upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unsecured loans and service tax credit w/off due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO are justified in the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee and whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.
M/s. Salasar Associates 2. Notice sent to the Assessee for the date of hearing on dated 16-01-2025 has been returned back by the Postal Authority with the remarks “left” meaning thereby that the Assessee is not situated at the address mentioned in the form 36. Hence, this Court is inclined to decide this appeal as ex-parte.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that the partner responsible for overseeing and managing the legal and financial affairs of the business, was suffering from serious health issues. The partner’s health condition which required immediate and ongoing medical attention, significantly impacted, the ability to attend the important tasks, including filing of the appeal and therefore the delay of 13 days in filing the instant appeal has been occurred, which was neither intentional nor malafide or willful but beyond the control of the Assessee and therefore the delay may kindly be condoned. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. Considering the delay as miniscule and based on the health issue as genuine and bonafide, the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) vide Assessment order dated 18.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.9,35,090/- (Rs.1,35,000/- + Rs.8,00,090/-).
The Assessee, being aggrieved against the assessment order dated 18.03.2016 and making the addition preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, in spite of granting multiple opportunities, eventually made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.
This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the orders passed by the authorities below. The Assessee has failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions and therefore the AO made the addition of Rs.1,35,000/- on account of interest payment made on unsecured loans raised from M/s. Kinjal Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner as well, failed to file any documents or any submissions. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the decisions of the authorities below in making and sustaining the addition of Rs.1,35,000/-. Thus, need no interference.
This Court further observe that the Assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,090/- as service tax credit w/off on which the AO asked the Assessee to produce the documentary evidence to justify the same, however, the Assessee, till passing of the assessment order dated 18.03.2016 by the AO and even during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner, has not provided any details. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence in support of such payments, the payments cannot be said to be expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes as determined by the authorities below and therefore correctly made and affirmed such disallowance of Rs.8,00,090/-, which needs no interference.
Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, this Court is inclined not to interfere in the orders passed by the authorities below and consequently dismissing the appeal of the Assessee, however, with liberty to the Assessee to seek recalling of this order by substantiating the reason of non-appearance before this Court.