Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) – Gulbarga dated 23.05.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under.
1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.
The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed at a total income of Rs. 4,72,130/-as determined by the learned AO as against the total income declared by the Appellant of Rs. 1,04,510/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 1,21,944/- on account of difference in turnover value of shares is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs.
Page 2 of 4 2,300/- on account of difference in valuation of closing stock of shares is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 86,300/- on account of under-valuation of closing stock of shares is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 2,300/- on account of difference in valuation of closing stock of shares is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance of Rs. 7,200/- on account of vehicle maintenance is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance of Rs. 6,764/- on account of various expenditures is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- by denying the claim of exemption on account of Gift received is not sustainable in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the Appellant Company denies itself liable to be charged to interest under sections 234B of the Act. The calculation of interest under sections 234B is not in accordance with law as the rate, amount and method for calculating interest is not discernible from the order of assessment.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”
This appeal was earlier fixed for hearing on two occasions i.e. on 14.11.2017 and 27.11.2017. On both these dates, the ld. AR of assessee sought adjournment as per letters dated 14.11.2017 and 27.11.2017 available on record. On both these dates, the hearing was adjourned on the request of the ld. AR of assessee to 27.11.2017 on the first occasion and to 10.01.2018 on the second occasion. On the last date of hearing i.e. 10.01.2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment.
Page 3 of 4 Under this factual position, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below.
4. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR of revenue and gone through the orders of authorities below. I find that the issues in dispute are regarding addition of Rs. 1,21,944/- on account of difference in turnover value of shares, Rs. 2,300/- on account of difference in valuation of closing stock of shares, Rs. 86,300/- on account of under-valuation of closing stock of shares. In addition to these, there are certain other disallowances / additions such as Rs. 7,200/- being disallowance on account of vehicle maintenance, Rs. 6,764/- being disallowance on account of various expenses and Rs. 3.50 Lakhs being addition on account of gift claimed to have been received by the assessee. As per the impugned order of CIT(A), it is seen that categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) on page no. 3 of his order that the assessee has not filed any detailed submissions or statement of facts of its case to explain the appeal. On page no. 4 of his order also, a categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) that regarding addition of Rs. 3.50 Lakhs on account of gifts received also, the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidences which are convincing to prove the receipt of the gift during the assessment proceedings or appeal proceedings. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee had neither filed the paper book nor written submissions and has not appeared on the appointed date of hearing after taking adjournment twice. Hence I find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT (A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.