Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] dated 28/02/2017 arising out of the assessment order dated 13/03/2014 passed by the Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ahmedabad u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year (AY 2011-12.
The assessee has filed the following grounds in the appeal preferred before us:-
D.Com Systems Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT Asst.Year - 2011-12
1. The Id CIT(Appeals)-6 Ahmedabad erred both in law and on facts in confirming disallowance/addition of Rs.l0,28,843/- made by AO u/s..14A of the Income tax Act without properly considering the submissions of the appellant. The computation of disallowance being erroneous, the addition of Rs.10,28,843/- deserves to be deleted. It be deleted now.
2. The Id CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of the AO making addition of Rs.l,09,69,073/- towards short term capital gain on sale of shares as against short term capital loss of Rs.30,99,691/-. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that sale price of shares was mutually agreed at a fair value and nothing more than agreed consideration was received. The addition of Rs, 1,09,69,073 being against sanction of law be deleted and loss claimed by appellant be allowed.
The Id CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts confirming addition of Rs.2,80,000/- made by AO on the alleged net income from house property when the facts regarding receipt of amount of Rs.4,00,000/-being credited to site expenses account was clearly verifiable from the accounts submitted. The addition being wholly against the facts and provisions of law, the same be deleted.
4. The Id CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition/disallowance of Rs.77,32,223/- towards site expenses and compensation actually incurred as business expenditure in terms of contractual obligations and under principles of commercial expediency. The disallowance being against the sanction of law, the same be deleted.
5. The Id CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 82,00,000/- u/s.68 being amounts received towards share capital & premium for which primary onus was discharged by appellant. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the appellant vide letter dated 23.02.2016 had specifically requested the opportunity to produce the creditors when all the documentary evidences were duly submitted. The addition be deleted.
D.Com Systems Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT Asst.Year - 2011-12
- 3 - 6. Both the lower authorities erred in not adhering to the principles of natural justice and principles of audi alter em partem while making and affirming erroneous additions. 7. The Id CIT (Appeals) ought to have allowed the appeal in toto. 8. The Id CIT (Appeals) further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the explanation furnished to him and not applying the judgments cited before him and wrongly applying the case laws not relevant to the facts of the appellant's case.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.
3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, none appeared on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment has been sought for. No written notes of submission is also filed by the assessee in order to substantiate the ground taken by the assessee. It further appears from the records that on a number of occasions the matter was taken up for hearing and most of the times either the assessee did not appear or sought for adjournment. Having no other alternative, we have proposed to decide the appeal on the basis of the records available before us. The Ld.DR, however, relied upon the orders passed by the authorities below.
We have heard the Ld.DR. We have carefully considered the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). We do not find any ambiguity in such order. In the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee by making any contrary submission, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the appeal preferred by the assessee is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed.
D.Com Systems Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT Asst.Year - 2011-12
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/06/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 15/06/2022 ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS