SAJ FLIGHT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is instituted in view of the MA No.91 /Chny/ 2018. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the assesse had contested the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.10.2013 in ITA No.844 / 13-14 passed u/s 143(3) read with sections 147 and 250 of the Act before this tribunal. Vide order ITA No.185/Mds./2014 dated 20.03.2014. This tribunal had dismissed the appeal in view of non-compliance on the part of the assesse by applying the judicial ratio laid down in CIT vs Multi Plan 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). The assesse again pleaded for restoration of its appeal and consequently vide MA No.91/Chny/2018 dated

ITA No.185/Chny/2014 :- 2 -:

13.10.2023, the appeal of the assesse was allowed and restored for adjudication. 2. Material available on record indicate that even though this is the second round of adjudication before this tribunal, the assesse has chosen to remain non-compliant which is evident from continuous non-attendance on the part of the assesse. Accordingly, this appeal is being decided on the basis of material currently available on records and on merits. The Ld. DR concurred with this decision of the Bench. 3. In the instant case order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2009 was passed by the assessing officer circle VI(1), Chennai making certain additions to the return income. Aggrieved by the same, the assesse contested before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since passed his order in ITA No.844 / 13-14 dated 13.10.2013, being the order in dispute. 4. Perusal of Form-36 filled by the assesse shows that it has raised some 22 grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the grounds raised are adjudicated as under:- 5. Ground of appeal No.1 is routine and general in nature and hence bereft of any adjudication. 6. Ground of appeal No.2 is regarding assesse not been provided reasonable opportunity by the Ld.CIT(A). On perusal of the Para-2 of order of Ld.CIT(A) Supra it is seen that in compliance to notices issued, Shri Reji Varghese, Director of the assesse company appeared and filed return statements in

ITA No.185/Chny/2014 :- 3 -:

support of its claims and the case was discussed with him. Thus, seen the argument of the assesse is not supported with the facts on records. Consequently, the Ground of appeal No.2 is dismissed. 7. Ground of appeal No.3 & 4 are regarding the disallowance of advertisement charges of Rs.4,16,032/-. The Ld. CIT(A), has recorded in his order that the addition was made by the AO on account of non-production of entire bills and voucher by the assesse and that the same were also not produced even before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO is upheld and Ground of appeal No.3 & 4 is dismissed. 8. Ground of appeal No.5 & 6 are regarding the disallowance of garden expenses of Rs. 35,948/-. The Ld. CIT(A), has recorded in his order that the addition was made by the AO on account of non-production of entire bills and voucher by the assesse and that the same were also not produced even before the LD. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO is upheld and Ground of appeal No.5 & 6 are dismissed. 9. Ground of appeal No.7, 8 & 9 are regarding the addition of Rs.5,59,515/- on account of office expenses. The Ld. CIT(A), has recorded in his order that the addition was made by the AO on account of non-production of entire bills and voucher by the assesse and that the same were also not produced even before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the

ITA No.185/Chny/2014 :- 4 -:

addition made by the AO is upheld and Ground of appeal No.7, 8 & 9 are dismissed. 10. Ground of appeal No.10, 11, 12 & 13 are regarding the addition of Rs.10,05,350/- under the head repairs and maintenance. While confirming the addition made by the AO, the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the assesse failed to provide full evidence to him. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and Ground of appeal No.10, 11, 12 & 13 are dismissed. 11. Ground of appeal No.14, 15 & 18 are regarding the addition of Rs.8,08,320/- an account of vehicle expenses. While confirming the addition made by the AO, the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the assesse failed to provide full evidence to him. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and Ground of appeal No.14, 15 & 18 are dismissed. 12. Ground of appeal No.16 is regarding the Ld.CIT(A) not considering the additional grounds raised by the Appellants. The Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding in the Page.3 of his order regarding the filing of additional grounds of appeal by assesse vide his petition dated 28.10.2010. Further, in Para-5 of Page-5 of his order, Ld.CIT(A) has observed that “….I have considered this submissions of the AR of the assesse as well as the findings given the assessment order, remand report carefully and also perused the various judicial pronouncements cited by the AR of the assesse. The decision in respect of each ground of appeal filed by the assesse are as under……”. A perusal of the same alludes

ITA No.185/Chny/2014 :- 5 -:

that the Ld.CIT(A) has considered all the grounds raised by the Appellants during the course of his adjudication and hence the Ground of appeal No.16 is dismissed. 13. Ground of appeal No.17 is regarding the confirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) of the addition of Rs.2,76,120/- on account of depreciation on water treatment plant or a temporary structure. The Ld.CIT(A) has clearly recorded in Page-6 of his order that the “…the AR of the assesse in the course of appellate proceedings did not press this ground…”. Accordingly, the contention of the assesse in raising the ground of appeal is not correct and hence the Ground of appeal No.17 is dismissed. 14. Ground of appeal No.19, 20 & 21 are regarding the confirmation of 1 lac under the head telephone expenses. It is seen that the AO had made an addition of Rs.3,35,570/- being 20% disallowance of telephone expenses amounting to Rs.16,77,849/-. After considering evidence produced by the assesse, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.1 lacs as expenses for non- business purposes. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) has been found to be in order. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.19, 20 & 21 are dismissed. 15. Ground of appeal No.22 is regarding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous, illegal and contrary to provisions of Income Tax Act. Upon careful perusal of the order of Ld.CIT(A), it has been found that there is nothing on records to indicate that the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous, illegal and contrary

ITA No.185/Chny/2014 :- 6 -: to provisions of Income Tax Act. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No. 22 is dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th May, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर स िंह) (श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला) (Mahavir Singh) (Amitabh Shukla) उपाध्यक्ष / Vice President लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनािंक/Dated: 29th May, 2024. kb/- आदेश की प्रततसलपप अग्रेपषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Coimbatore / Salem 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्ड फाईल/GF