SAIPRABHA MARINE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2), MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-2010 assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 08/01/2014 qua confirmation of 10% adhoc disallowance against yard salary and membership & subscription fees and also disallowance u/s 43B. None has appeared on behalf of assessee despite being provided with sufficient opportunity. Therefore, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing departmental representative.

It is noted that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 18 days and the assessee has vide its letter dated 15/04/2014 requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay has been attributed to the negligence of staff and financial difficulties being faced by the assessee. Since, the delay is minor, we condone the same and proceed to decide the matter on merits. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee, being resident corporate assessee, was subjected to an assessment u/s 143(3) for the impugned AY vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 29/12/2011 wherein the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,75,79,770/- after certain adjustments / disallowances as against returned income of Rs.1,56,94,330/- filed by assessee on 29/09/2009. The assessee was engaged in the business of marine storage containers. During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs.1,10,68,862/- towards yard salary and Rs.2,25,603/- as membership & subscription fees. Since the assessee failed to produce relevant vouchers / evidences / details etc., it suffered an adhoc disallowance of 10% against the same. Further, the assessee paid certain bonus of Rs.7,55,990/- to its employees against which it failed to produce any evidence of payment which resulted into addition of this amount u/s 43B. The assessee contested the additions before Ld. CIT(A) without any success vide order dated 08/01/2014 where it submitted salary sheet of the employee towards his claim for yard salary and details of bonus payment made by him. However, these Saiprabha Marine Services Private Limited Assessment Year 2009-10 details/evidences, in the opinion of Ld. CIT(A), amounted to additional evidences and hence not admissible at that stage in terms of Rule 46A as the assessee could not point out any exceptional circumstances which prevented him from furnishing these evidence during original assessment proceedings. No evidence was furnished by assessee against membership & subscription fees. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that the assessee did not substantiated his claim properly before lower authorities and hence rightly suffered the said disallowances. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue of additional evidences in his impugned order and after thorough analysis of Rule 46A reached the conclusion that none of the exceptional circumstance as mentioned in the Rule 46A were satisfied which justifies admission of additional evidences. We concur with the view of the Ld. CIT(A) as the onus to substantiate the expenses squarely lied on the assessee which he failed to discharge. None has appeared on behalf of assessee before us that shows non- seriousness on the part of the assessee to peruse his claim and therefore in the circumstances, we find no substance in assessee’s appeal and therefore, dismiss the same. 6. In nutshell, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2017.