Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-26/IT-196/13-14 dated 02/12/2015 qua confirmation of certain additions. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and therefore left with no option, we proceed to dispose- off the same on the basis of material available on record and after ITA.No.1398/Mum/2016 Ramchandra R. Pillai Assessment Year-2010-11 hearing Ld. Departmental Representative, Shri Ram Tiwari. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer- 22(3)(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 18/03/2013 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.51.48 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.11.06 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 19/09/2011.
The assessee being resident individual engaged as civil and mechanical contractor under proprietorship concern namely Geetanjali Construction Co. has been saddled with following additions as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) and which form the subject matter of this appeal:-
No. Nature of Additions Amount (Rs.) 1. Work Contract paid to Brothers Engineering Works 1,82,818/- 2. Work Contract paid to National Electricals 1,71,030/- 3. Adhoc disallowance against unverified expenses 10,00,000/- TOTAL 13,53,848/-
The Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A), with due application of mind and after considering the factual matrix has adjudicated the issues and therefore the same require no interference.
We have heard the submissions and perused the order of lower authorities in this regard. Upon due consideration, so far as the addition against work contract expenses is concerned, we find that the primary onus to prove the genuineness of the expenditure could not be discharged by the assessee. Similarly, the expenses as debited by the assessee in the Profit & Loss Account could not be satisfactorily explained. Hence, the additions sustained by Ld. CIT(A) were justified and we do not find any infirmity in the same.