Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Thane (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 21.12.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing sufficient time to the assessee during the proceedings before him which is against the principle of natural justice and therefore the said order is to be considered as void-ab-initio and bad in law.
2. Without prejudice to the Ground No.1, the learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition u/s 41(1) / 68 of the act on account of the outstanding balances of creditors amounting to Rs.45,25,259 without appreciating the facts and submissions made before the learned AO as well as learned CIT (A) in this behalf.
3. Without prejudice to the Ground No.1, the learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition u/s 68 of the act on account of the advance received from customer amounting to Rs.12,00,000 without appreciating the facts and submissions made before the learned AO as well as learned CIT (A) in this behalf.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
3. Briefly, facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading iron and steel. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was electronically filed on 24.06.2015 declaring total income of Rs.5,38,890/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5, Panvel (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 20.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.62,65,150/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of sundry creditors appearing in the books of account by holding that the sundry creditors ceases to exist invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.12,00,000/- being advance received from the customers by holding that the appellant had failed to furnish the details, names and address of the parties from whom the advance was received, invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the above additions, the appellant was preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after discussing the merits of the case.
5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before us in the present appeal.
6. Even before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice, after hearing the ld. Sr. DR, we proceed to dispose of this appeal.
7. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the appeal was disposed