SACHIN BALKRISHNA RAIKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

This appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai (Hereinafter called as the CIT(A) ) dt. 26/12/2014 for assessment years 2011-12. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeal) erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs. 9,68,133.00 against total income of Rs. 11,24,500.00

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or omit the aforesaid Grounds of appeal as occasion may arise of demad. 2.1 The appeal was last fixed for hearing on 09/12/2015 and on this date, on the request of the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 22/12/2015 and date of hearing was pronounced in open court but on this date of hearing i.e. 22/12/2015, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no application for adjournment. Therefore, this appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee. 2.2 Ld DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 2.3 I have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR of the revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below and find that it was noted by the AO and also by CIT(A) that as per Form 26AS, the assessee has earned professional fees of Rs. 11,24,500/- from Topgroup Risk Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. and tax has been deducted at source on the same. However, the assessee has not offered this income to tax in return of income filed on 29/07/2011. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has accepted receipt of this amount as inspection charges fees but he claimed that deduction should be allowed of certain expenses aggregating to Rs. 9,68,133/- but the A.O.