JAYESH PAVITRARAY TOLIA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appellant by : Shri Pankaj Toprani Respondent by : Ms. Usha Gaikwad Date of Hearing 17.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-1 [hereinafter referred to as “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 19.06.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015- 16.

16. Jayesh Pavitraray Tolia 2) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of Gift amounting to Rs. 5,07,864/-u/s 37(1) 3) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of 10% of Motor Car Expenses, Insurance and Depreciation amount to Rs. 72,083/- (i.c. 10% of Rs. 2,17,422/57,919/- 4,45,485/-) u/s 37(1) 4) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of Office Expenditure (Repairs & Maintenance) of Rs. 2,65,000/- u/s 40A(3). 5) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs. 83,000/- of Repairs and Maintenance Expenses u/s 37(1) 6) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs. 2,52,000/- being 30% of Rs.8,40,000/- of Salary Expenses 7) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. of u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure of Rs. 6,984/- 8) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in making disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs.17,560/- Interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) 9) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in making disallowance made by the A.O. of Rs.29,442/-being 20% of Telephone Expenses of Rs. 1,47,208/-u/s 37(1) 10) The Lower Authorities erred in not granting the opportunity of cross examination to the assessee despite his request for the same. 11) Both the Lower Authorities has denied the client natural justice by not providing the material they have relied on. 12) The order appealed against is bad in law and against the principal of natural justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, who is an intending agent for supply of pharmaceutical intermediates and dyes, filed his return declaring income of Rs. 7,91,840/- 0n 08.07.2016. The AO while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) made some disallowances out of various expenses as such business promotion, gifts, car expenses, repairs & maintenance etc. and finalized the assessment.

4. Aggrieved with this order dated 25.12.2017, the assessee filed an appeal on 10.01.2018. Ld. Addl. CIT(A) issued 4 notices in response to which except A.Y. 2015-16 Jayesh Pavitraray Tolia one request for adjournment, no details/written submissions were filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal exparte after considering material available on record. Vide order dated 19.06.2024, assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. Addl. CIT(A). Aggrieved with the order, the assessee is in appeal before us.