PRAKASH RAMESH WADHWANI,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 384/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 February 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)6 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of GST late fees as the assessee failed to provide supporting documents. The addition under Section 69A was also upheld as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the cash advances.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 43B for GST late fees and under Section 69A for unexplained cash advances. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether GST late fees are allowable as a deduction and whether unexplained cash advances can be added under Section 69A without proper substantiation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 29.01.2024Pronounced: 01.02.2024

For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT Date of Hearing : 29.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019- 2020, arises against the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune’s Din and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2022-23/1049460332(1), dated 06.02.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Cased called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. A perusal of instant case file reveals that today is the 17th opportunity of hearing to the assessee since he never appeared from 11.08.2023 on the nine opportunities. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 I.T.A.No.384/PUN./2023 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition u/s 43B of the Act amounting to Rs.81,310 of late fees paid under the GST Laws. He failed to appreciate the facts as well as the legal precedents in the matter in its proper perspective. [Rs.25,125/-].

2.

The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.51,49,500 u/s 69A of the Act of advances received in cash which were not accounted in the books of accounts without appreciating the fact that the assessee has added the same in his sales amount and offered to tax accordingly. He failed to appreciate the facts as well as the legal precedents in the matter in its proper perspective. [Rs.15,91,195/-] 3. The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.51,49,500 u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that no such cash was found during survey action which is a pre-requisite for addition u/s 69A of the Act. [Rs.16,16,320/-] 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Learned DR first of all took us to the former issue of disallowance of GST late fee amounting to Rs.81,310/-

3 I.T.A.No.384/PUN./2023 wherein the assessee’s bills as well as supporting challans etc. have nowhere been submitted till date for the necessary factual verification. The same factual position has continued before us as well in sec.254(1) second appellate hearings. Rejected accordingly.

4.

Next comes the latter issue of sec.69A addition of Rs.51,49,500/- assessed u/sec.115BBE of the Act by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment dated 30.09.2021 as affirmed in the CIT(A)'s order vide following detailed discussion :

4 I.T.A.No.384/PUN./2023

5 I.T.A.No.384/PUN./2023

5.

It has thus come on record that the assessee has not been able to prove the impugned advances’ “genuineness” during the course of assessment as well as before the CIT(A) by filing the relevant supportive material. We accordingly see no reason to accept his instant second substantive ground as well.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →