M/S KHIM ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 538/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 February 2019AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 108.00 lakh as the assessee did not furnish any details to substantiate its claim. The appeal was disposed of ex parte due to the absence of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2012-2013 and challenges the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 108.00 lakh by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to provide any substantiating details for its claim before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), or the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2)(b) is justified when the assessee fails to provide necessary details to substantiate its claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, VP & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM

For Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Hearing: 13.02.2019Pronounced: 13.02.2019

Per B.R.Baskaran, AM :

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-4, Bangalore and it relates to assessment year 2012-2013.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.108.00 lakh made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the notice issued by the registry has been duly served upon the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without the presence of the assessee. We noticed that the Assessing Officer was constrained to make the . M/s.Khim Engineering Industries P.Ltd. impugned disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act since the assessee did not furnish any details to substantiate its claim. Before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee did not furnish the details. Before us also nothing was furnished. Hence we have no other option, but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 40A(2)(b)

All 1,172 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →