Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, in dated 22.11.2017 for the AY 2004-05.
M/s.Five Star Marine Exports Ltd., the assessee, is engaged in the business of exporting sea foods. While making the assessment for the AY 2004-05, the AO, inter alia, disallowed 50% of the beheading expenses and the peeling charges claimed by the assessee.Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) held, inter alia, that the assessee has produced the ledger account copy of beheading expenses and peeling charges only. The payments are made by cash and they are not examined. Since the assessee has not produced any bills or vouchers in respect of such claim either before the AO nor before him, therefore, he upheld the disallowances made by the AO.
Aggrieved against the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal.
The assessee challenged the orders passed by the lower authorities.
While hearing the appeal, it was found that in the computation, the AO determined the total income in his order u/s 143(3) dt 22.12.2006 as under:
Income returned before allowing deduction u/s.80HHC Rs. 88,70,381 Less: Deduction u/s.Chapter VIA (i) 80 GGA Rs.12,000 (ii) 80HHC (separate sheet enclosed) Rs. NIL Rs. 12,000 -------------- -------------- Rs. 88,58,381 Income tax thereon Rs. 31,00,438 Add: Surcharge @ 2.5% Rs. 77,510 --------------- Rs. 31,77,943 --------------- Since the impugned disallowances are not forming part of the computation in the above order and the corresponding demands are not raised on the assessee, we asked the ld AR how this appeal is maintainable. The ld AR submitted that this aspect was not noticed by them at all.
We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant materials. It is clear from the above, though the AO discussed the impugned issues in the assessment order, neither he raised a demand corresponding to such disallowances nor the assessee has shown that it has any liability on the impugned issues which is being denied in this appeal within the scope of class (a) of sub-section 1 of section 246 and hence the impugned appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as dismissed.