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

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.

We find due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal in a detailed speaking order by observing as under:

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer, while making addition, disbelieved the claim for payment of professional / consultancy / technical services of Rs.40 lakhs made to Anisha Bimal Jhaveri, proprietor of M/s. Vibgyor Enterprises on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge the genuineness of such transaction. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that he has passed a very detailed order giving the reasons while upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. He has given a finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of payment made to M/s. Vibgyor Enterprises and their ability and experience for getting such huge amount from the assessee. He has further observed that the primary onus which was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of expenses has not been discharged by the assessee. In view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice to take a different view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in his order. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.