RAJVI PLASTO TECH P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCE ME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D"BENCH; MUMBAI BEFOFL SHRI SAKTIJIT DEX JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH LG MANJUNATHA_ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAno 2986/Mum [2017 (Assessment_Year 2012-13) M/s: Rajvi Plasto edh Pvt. Ltd _ no.22, Shivraj Bhawan no.1 First Floor, B.M. Mrg Elphinstone (West Mumbai 400 013 PAN AAECR2179 Appellant v/s Income Tax Officel Ward-13(3)(1), Mlnbai Respondent Assessee by :None Revenue by :Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing 61.02.2020 Date of Order 22.05.2020 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEN 1M This appeal Iby the assessee is directed against order dated 15th September 2016 Passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, for the ssessment year 2012-13_ 2 When the Ippeal was called for hearing, none was present to represent the cael on behalf of the assessee_ The assessee has not even filed any pplication seeking adjournment: As seen from the 2 Rajvi Plasto Tech Pvt: Ltd record , on earlieL loccasions also when the appeal was posted for hearing, no ond appeared on behalf of the assessee. In these circumstances, W proceed to dispose off the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hepring the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of mttterial on record_ 3 Before we Plloceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, we nlust observe, the Registry has notified delay of 133 days in filing the Ippeal. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of de ay supported by an affidavit: After considering the submissions of th assessee in the context of facts and material on record and the avlrmments made in the affidavit, we are convinced that the delay in filin the appeal is due to genuine reasons. Hence , considering the dellal, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4_ In the prese tlappeal, the assessee has basically contested three additions as set ot In grounds no.A, B and C. 5 Briefly the fdlt5 are, the assessee, a resident company, is stated to be engaged inlmanufacturing agro shed nets. For the assessment year under dispuf the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2012, declaring income of ? 23,42,568. The return of income filed by tH lassessee was subjected to scrutiny and in course of assessment pfpceedings the Assessing Officer / called upon the 3 Rajvi Plasto Tech Pvt: Ltd. assessee to furtish various details and justify the allowability of certain expendit res_ After examining the details and explanation furnished by the issessee, the Assessing Officer ultimately completed the assessment letermining the total income at ? 4,25,33,860, after making the follow ng additions: Pilrchase Expenses Tlarsport Expenses Irlfetest Expenses 73,63,16,715 37,31,230 730,53,843 6 Being aggrileved with the assessment order SO passed, the assessee preferre appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) However , learnedlcbmmissioner (Appeals) also sustained the addition made by the Assetsing Officer . 7 As could bel seen from the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities, the hajor addition of ? 3,71,37,445, is on account of payments made cash for purchases and transport charges in purported violatio Of section 40A(3) of the Act of the Act: It is further noticed , the aforelald addition was made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by letrrned Commissioner (Appeals) primarily on the allegation that thel assessee could neither furnish complete details nor could furnish any Ustifiable reason for paying in cash in violation of section 40A(3) the Act. Similarly , the interest disallowance of Rajvi Plasto Tech Pvt: Ltd. ? 30,53,843, wal made on the reasoning that such expenditure was made for acquirhg capital asset: Before uS also, the assessee has failed to addud either any cogent evidence or submissions to persuade uS tol take a view different from the view taken by the Departmental Ithorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are constrained to Uli hold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the disputed Isue by dismissing the grounds raised_ 8 In the resull appeal is dismissed. Order pronlbynced through notice board under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Apiillate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, on 22.05.2020 - G MANJUMATHA SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANIIMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22.10.2020 Copy of the order foltwarded to_ (1) (2) (3) ( The Assessed The Revenuel The CITA); The CIT, Murtibai City concerned; The DR, ITAT Mumbai; Guard file. (5) (6) By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai