HIMANSHU M. JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. counsel of the assessee did not press the 1st ground of appeal

. The 2nd, 3rd and the 4th ground of appeal filed by the assessee are against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming (i) addition on account of new loans of Rs.35,72,500/- made by the AO u/s 68, (ii) addition on account of outstanding creditors amounting to Rs.3,71,879/- made by the AO u/s 41(1) and (iii) addition on account of unexplained cash deposits into bank amounting to Rs.8,79,848/- made by the AO u/s 69.

3. We find from the assessment order that there was no compliance by the assessee to the notice issued by the AO for hearing and filing the details. There is no dispute about this. Therefore, the AO made an addition of(i) Rs.35,72,500/- u/s 68, (ii) Rs.3,71,879/- u/s 41(1), (iii) Rs.8,79,848/- u/s 69 and (iv) ad-hoc disallowance @ 25% of administrative and office expenses of Rs.1,19,809/-.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed confirmation letters from the loan parties before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) sent a copy of it to the AO to verify the above additional evidence and file a remand report. Having gone through the remand report, the argument of the authorized representative of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.35,72,500/- made by the AO u/s 68, Rs.3,71,879/- u/s 41(1) and Rs.8,79,848/- u/s 69. He restricted the ad-hoc disallowance of administrative and office expenses made by the AO to 20%.

5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the remand proceedings by the AO to explain his case. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that there was no compliance by the assessee in the