Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JASON P. BOAZ & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai dated 12/6/2012 for assessment year 2006- 07.
The facts of the case, briefly, are as under:-
2.1 The assessee, a firm engaged in the business of manufacture and trading in readymade garments/cloth, filed its return of income for (Assessment Year 2006-07) assessment year 2006-07 on 30/10/2006 declaring income of Rs.34,92,030/-. A survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘the Act’) was conducted in the assessee’s business premises on 10/11/2005. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23/12/2008, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.54,04,640/- as against the returned income of Rs.34,92,030/-, in view of an addition of inter-alia Rs.19,12,604/- thereto on account of difference in net profit. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 12/06/2012.
Aggreived by the order of the CIT(Appeal)-34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2006-07 dated 12/6/2012 the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O on Account of Stock of Rs.33,58,997/-.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made on estimate basis in survey proceeding assessment passed u/s.143(3).
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that Bad Debts claimed by appellant in assessment proceedings has not been allowed by A.O.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition passing the order after the lapse of more than two years of submission.
The Appellant reserves the right to add, to delete and/or amend any of the foregoing ground of appeal
.”
4. This case was fixed for hearing on various dates. On four occasions, the case was adjourned on the request of the Ld. Representative for the assessee and on other dates none was present on behalf of the assessee. Today i.e. 05/01/2016, when the case was called for hearing, one was present on behalf of the assessee. The (Assessment Year 2006-07) Ld.D.R, however, was present for Revenue. In these circumstances it appears to us that the assessee is not interested in pursuing this appeal and, we therefore, proceed to dispose off this case with the assistance of the Ld. D.R and the material on record.
5. After considering the submissions made by the Ld. D.R in support of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the findings rendered therein and the material on record, we find that the assessee has been unable to rebut or controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the additions; (i) on account of difference in stock - Rs. 33,58,997/-; (ii) on account of estimation of net profits @ 1.4% on total sales and (iii) on account of disallowance of administrative expenditure Consequently, the grounds at Sl.Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are dismissed. The Grounds at Sl.Nos 4 & 5 being general in nature and not being argued before us are dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2016