PRASHANT RAMESHRAO DHUMAL,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2 , AURANGABAD

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad’s order dated 11.09.2018 passed in case no. ABD/CIT(A)-2/79/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He had also not appeared on 25.10.2021, 12.01.2022, 12.04.2022, 21.06.2022 and 01.09.2022 as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee.

This assessee’s instant appeal raised the following substantive grounds :- “1. The assessee has already declared, profit @39%. The assessee is not covered by the provisions of section 44AB, though he has voluntarily audited books under the said section. The Ld. Assessing Officer has not challenged the Sales Turnover of the assessee i.e. the Sales Turnover is accepted to the office of Ld. Assessing Officer. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition is not justified. The income declared by assessee is more by 31% i.e. 39%. The provisions of section 44AD requires assessee to declare only 8% of the Sales Turnover. In the present case of the assessee has stated income Rs. 36,43,520/- which is 39% of the Sales Turnover. The total income % after additions comes to 58%, which is not justified on commercial ground, and where the sales is accepted to the Ld. AO. The action of the CIT (A)-2, is not as per the law and as such additions may be deleted in the interest of justice. 2. The loans and advances are made out of the profits and capital of the assessee and not from the borrowed funds by the assessee and hence disallowance should not be made as such. An application under section 154 is forwarded to the office of CIT (A)-2, and the same is pending with the Office.”

It is thus clear that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing/adding not only unexplained cash credits in capital account of Rs.10,00,000/- but also an amount of Rs.16,56,959/- representing various expenses. The assessee’s sole case before us is that the same enhances the profit element from 39% of the sale turnover already declared (supra) to 58% thereby going against all commercial practices. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant plea once the learned lower authorities have gone through his duly audited book results only. This first and foremost substantive ground is dismissed therefore.