NAVNITLAL KALIDAS GANDHI(HUF), PROP. OF AMBIKA TEXTILES,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), SURAT

63 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before Shri C.M.GARG, Judicial Member, and Shri O.P. MEENA, Accountant Member ITA No.1670/AHD/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Navnitlal Kalidas Gandhi (HUF) Prop of Ambika textiles, 16, Bhagya Anidhi row House, Near Gangeshwar Mahadev, New Adajan Road, Surat 395001 (Appellant) PA: No. AAEHG4OO8E ITO, Ward -3(1) , Surat TI Vs. (Respondent #aiv Assessee by Shri Nitin Gandhi 8 Shri Mujkseh Bhai Jariwala Revenue by Smt Ila Parmar Sr . DR Final Date of Hearing: 07/12/2017 Date of Order: 11/01/2018 Krnia, HC8 LORDER Per Shri C M_Garg_JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) II, Surat, dated 17.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09_ 2 In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Devanshi D_ Gandhi ITA No.26 17 /A/20 14 a) That the addition of Rs. 1,61,070/ made by the Assessing Officer be deleted or alternatively be reduced. 3 . We have heard arguments from both the side and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record of the Tribunal. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the Assessing Officer was not correct in making addition on account of salary expenses of Rs. 1,61,070 / as payable related to the earlier year as this expense was outstanding at the end of year and salary was payable to the persons who rendered services for the purpose of business of the assessee The Ld_ AR submitted that impugned order was wrongly upheld by the Ld CIT (A) hence, the orders of the authorities below may kindly be set aside deleting the addition. Alternatively, he submitted that addition may kindly be reduced as per facts of the case. 4 . Replying to the above, the Ld Departmental Representative (DR) supported the assessment and first appellate order and submitted that on being show caused by the Assessing Officer the assessee did not filed any reply and explanation therefore, the authorities below were right in making disallowances? of the salary expenses, related to the earlier year , which was shown outstanding at the end of year. 5 _ On careful consideration of above rival submissions we are of the view that from para 4.1 of the assessment order it is clear that the assessee did not file any explanation or submission before the Assessing Officer and the assessee has shown salary expenses as payable related to earlier year a9irv Devanshi D. Gandhi ITA No.2617/4/2014 hence, the Assessing Officer made disallowance in this regard. From the first appellate order para 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 we observe that the addition was confirm by observing that it was still shown as payable after one year on 31/03/2008 and the assessee failed to produce the original documents before the Assessing Officer such as salary wages register and attendance register neither before the Assessing Officer nor during first appellate proceedings In view of above factual findings we are inclined to hold that the Assessing Officer was right in making addition and Ld, CIT (A) was also correct in upholding the same as the assessee could not establish his claim as required by the provisions of the Act: We are unable to sec any valid reason to interfere with the first appellate order and thus, we uphold the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed: 7r1o, Order pronounced in the open court o 11/01/2018 (O.P. Meena) (C.M. Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 87iv /Dated : 1lth January, 2018 Nhanu/LDC Copy to: Assessee/AO /Pr. CIT / CIT (A)/ITAT (DR) / Guard file_ By order J Uoefc a3/1) J Sr_Private Secretary, Surat Po Narereh 4oifer MFT 28Ry 3frrv Ta 7i44i3, Ta. #iav