Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-21 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-21/ITO-7(2)(2)/IT- 402/2013-14 dated 20/03/2015. The assessment for impugned AY was ITA.No.4274/Mum/2015 Mettaco Engineering Private Limited Assessment Year-2010-11 framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(3), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 05/03/2013. The assessee is aggrieved by quantum additions / adjustments as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).
Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee was assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) on 05/03/2013 at Rs.70,67,170/- as against Nil return filed by the assessee on 14/10/2010. The assessee, during assessment proceedings, filed revised computation of income and financial statements. The assessee reflected sale of fixed assets & other income of Rs.106.31 Lacs and claimed aggregate expenditure of Rs.253.04 Lacs and reflected net loss of Rs.146.72 Lacs. However, no details / documentary evidences were filed by the assessee which resulted into disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee and finally the income was assessed at Rs.70.67 Lacs after certain adjustment.
Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 20/03/2015 where the assessee again neglected to represent his case which resulted into dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) also noted that the assessee prepared unsubstantiated Profit & Loss Account without carrying on any business activity. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR] pleaded for another opportunity to substantiate his case before lower authorities which was vehemently opposed by the Ld. DR on the ground that adequate opportunity was already been granted to the assessee but he failed to avail the same.
Heard and perused the material on record. It is evident that the assessee has, in a very casual manner, neglected to substantiate his