TARA ELCTRO APPLIANCES PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in fact in confirming addition of Rs. 10,60,305/- out of addition of Rs. 13,10,305/- made by Id. AO being unverifiable purchase of assets duly accounted for in books of accounts.

The assessee company is engaged in the business of mobile recharge and DTH recharge business. The assessee company filed its return of income on 01-11-2017 declaring total income of Rs. nil (current year loss of Rs. 4,70,097/- and the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. nil. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the assessee on 29-08- 2018. The reason for selection for scrutiny described as quantitative details of principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished goods not submitted. In response to the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessee furnished his submissions dated 15-09-2019. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was accordingly issued along with questionnaire. The assessee filed certain details but the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not provided the details related to trade payable, additions to fixed assets and the claim of deprecation thereon, expenses towards salary and remuneration, interest expenses and other expenses claimed. The Assessing Officer therefore

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. A.R. submitted that there is a delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal as the assessee was seeking the advice from his professional consultant and due to unavoidable circumstances the delay incurred. The explanation by the assessee appears to be reasonable. Hence, the delay is condoned.

The ld. Authorized Representative submitted the assessee could not respond the email of the hearing notices issued by the CIT(A) as the assessee’s concern account department has not informed on time. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee was not able to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A) and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has filed the paper book

The ld. D.R. submitted that despite giving proper opportunities, the assessee has not filed the relevant details either before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) and in fact there is negligence on the part of the assessee to represent the case properly. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly decided the case on merit as well.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer while deciding the issue on merit. In fact, the CIT(A) has also not called upon the assessee to file bills for fixed assets purchases and thus the proper representation was not taken into account by the Revenue while deciding the case. From the perusal of the documents, it appears that the evidences filed before the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-04-2024 and signed on 26-04-2024