VISHAL ASSOCIAES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 26, Mumbai dated 03.09.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09.

M/s. Vishal Associates 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-26, Mumbai dated 03.09.2013, the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - “

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of provision made for various expenses to be incurred as per the certificate of Architect since income in respect of such expenses was considered for the purpose of computing the income. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that when an income is brought to tax corresponding expenditure to be incurred should be allowed as deduction on matching principles as per the laid down law. The appellant craves right to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any of the Grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing.

4. The case was fixed for hearing on at least five occasions and on each of these hearings none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Today, i.e. 01.02.2016, when the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed on assessee’s behalf. The learned D.R. was, however, present for Revenue. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal seriously and therefore proceed to dispose off assessee’s appeal with the assistance of the learned D.R. for Revenue and the material on record.

5. In this appeal, the ground raised (supra) appears to be in respect of the disallowance of O.C. expenses of `10,00,000/-. In this regard, the finding of the learned CIT(A) at paras 3.2 and 3.2.1 of the impugned order are extracted hereunder: - “3.2 Submission of the Ld. A.R. has been considered. A query was made to the Ld. A.R. regarding actual expenses incurred till date on account of O.C. against the above debit. Ld. A.R. has not given any details of actual expenses incurred till date since the provision has been made. In response, Ld. A.R. has also stated that O.C. for the project has not been received as yet. 3.2.1 On the facts, as stated, the absence of details of actual expenses incurred against the provisions of Rs.10 lakhs and the submission that O.C. for the project has not been received as yet, it is difficult to believe that any further expense in connection with the building already completed in the F.Y. 2007-08 is still to be incurred. Therefore, applying matching concept it is hereby held that no expense M/s. Vishal Associates has actually been incurred against the provisions of Rs.10 lakhs made by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the A.O. is hereby upheld and this ground is hereby dismissed.” 5.1 We have considered the submissions of the learned D.R. in support of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and perused and carefully considered the material on record. We find that the assessee has been unable to rebut or controvert with evidence the findings of the AO in respect of the disallowed O.C. Expenses amounting to `10 lakhs. In these factual circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings as recorded by the learned CIT(A) on this issue (supra) and accordingly uphold the impugned order.

Mumbai, Dated: 3rd February, 2016