DADASO ASHOK AWATI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF

ITA 1480/PUN/2025Status: HeardITAT Pune07 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,46,575/- wherein he made addition of Rs.40 lakhs by disallowing the claim for payment of professional / consultancy / technical services made to Anisha Bimal Jhaveri, proprietor of Vibgyor Enterprises treating the same as non- genuine.6 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The assessee, Dadaso Ashok Awati, a proprietor engaged in manufacturing and trading PPE kits, filed a return declaring Rs.19,46,575/- income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.59,46,575/-, adding Rs.40 lakhs by disallowing professional/consultancy services paid to M/s Vibgyor Enterprises, treating it as non-genuine. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance and upheld the disallowance.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, finding no infirmity in their decision. The Tribunal concurred that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the payment made for professional/consultancy/technical services to M/s Vibgyor Enterprises, stating that the primary onus to prove expenses was not discharged.

Key Issues

Whether the disallowance of Rs.40 lakhs for professional/consultancy/technical services paid to M/s Vibgyor Enterprises was justified due to lack of genuineness and failure by the assessee to discharge the onus of proof.

Sections Cited

143(2), 142(1), 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2021-22.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the name of the assessee was called. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was first fixed for hearing on 07.10.2025 and due to non-appearance by anybody, the case was adjourned to 26.11.2025. Again due to non-appearance on that date, the case was adjourned to 05.01.2026. However, today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. Further, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 371 days. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Rs.40 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Dadaso Ashok Awati engaged in manufacture of PPE Kits, Mask and wholesale retail business of trading in facemask, face shield, medical examination gloves, isolation gowns and premium and standard PPE Kits etc. He filed his return of income on 05.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.19,46,575/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed certain details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.59,46,575/- wherein he made addition of Rs.40 lakhs by disallowing the claim for payment of professional / consultancy / technical services made to Anisha Bimal Jhaveri, proprietor of Vibgyor Enterprises treating the same as non- genuine.