V GO MOTORS P.LTD ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-26(1), NEW DELHI

Facts in brief are that return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 28,05,700/- assessment has been completed on an income Rs. 1,71,63,849/- and while doing so the Assessing Officer after disallowing the various expenses as detailed below has considered the same as the income of the Assessee. 15% of expenses of Rs. 2,38,49,515/- being Rs. 35,77,427/- disallowed. The Assessee had made addition to the building and also on other fixed assets amounting to Rs. 72,38,500/-. The Assessing Officer has disallowed 30% of such expenditure at Rs. 24,12,833/-. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed depreciation of Rs. 10,11,257/- on the building. The assessing officer has also treated the entire amount of investment of Rs. 12,41,839/- in four fixed assets as income of the Assessee and also further disallowed depreciation on such four fixed assets of Rs. 2,30,249/-. The assessing officer has also disallowed 15% expenses on spares and lubricants amounting to Rs. 58,84,544/-. In this way assessment has been computed at Rs. 1,71,63,849/- as against returned income of Rs. 28,05,700/-. The Assessee claimed before the ld CIT(A) that all such additions and disallowances have been made on the basis of estimate surmise and conjectures without rejecting the books of accounts.

As the case was called for hearing today, non-appeared. Record shows earlier on 23.01.2022 matter was heard ex-parte, however, when fixed for clarification on oral request of assessee, hearing was adjourned to 27th January, 2023. However, non-appeared on 27th January, 2023 and the Bench had directed for issuing notices on hearing by RPAD. None has appeared for the assessee while track consignment report is on his record. No more opportunity is justifiable. Arguments on merits of the case were heard of Ld. Sr. DR, who supported the orders of Ld Tax Authorities below.

Now appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that primarily the Ld. Tax Authorities below had passed the orders, making additions as the assessee failed to produce any evidence before them. It can be observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that for every addition he had sustained, he mentions that the disputed expenditure was not supported with any bill/voucher or other evidence. That being so when assessee prefers to be ex parte here, then no other opinion can be formed. Merely because the disallowances or additions were made on ad hoc that does not make the orders illegal when assessee himself has failed to produce any corroborative evidence of expenditures or purchases. The grounds raised