M/S SAURASHTRA ENGINEERING WORKS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3767/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 October 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Saurashtra Engineering Works, 4023, Naya Bazar, New Delhi-110006. PAN- AAAFS9959G Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-47(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing 10.10.2023 Date of pronouncement 16.10.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 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 found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s factual findings. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the expenses claimed as exclusively for business purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2012-13. The CIT(A) noted a lack of material to examine the genuineness of capital gains and bad debts, and disallowed expenses for conveyance, telephone, and car as not exclusively for business.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to justify the genuineness of capital gains, bad debts, and business-related expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 10.10.2023Pronounced: 16.10.2023

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 09.03.2017, for the assessment year 2012-13, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “learned First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”), in appeal no. 165/15-16, arising out of assessment order dated

2 ITA 3767/Del/2017 31.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-47(1), New Delhi.

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

None appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing. Notices have been repeatedly issued. The record shows that earlier on 2.9.2021 and 6.2.2023 learned AR appeared. Further, on 8.5.2023 application for adjournment was received from the assessee himself. Notices have been issued on e-mail ID of the assessee for today. No more opportunity is justified. Arguments of learned DR were heard who supported the findings of learned tax authorities below.

4.

After thoughtful consideration of the record it can be observed that in regard to ground no. 1.a and b, the learned CIT has observed that there was no material before the learned AO or before him to examine the genuineness of transaction of source of addition of capital gain and the nature of bad debts which were written off. It appears that the assessee has been too casual in approach to justify the queries raised by the tax authorities.

5.

Similarly, in regard to ground no. 1.c, learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration to the fact that certain disallowances made on ad hoc basis on account of personal expenses were not justified. With regard to conveyance expenses, telephone expenses and car expenses the assessee failed to establish by 3 ITA 3767/Del/2017 evidence or circumstances regarding the nature of business, that the same were exclusively for the business. There is no apparent reason to interfere in the factual findings of learned CIT(A). Grounds have no substance. Appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.10.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →