M/S. GNG TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

Heard. As the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee. The record shows since 11.01.2021 matter has been listed repeatedly but none has appeared for the assessee and the notice issued for today have been received back within the report of ‘Left Address’. No more opportunity is justifiable. Arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of ld. Tax Authorities below.

Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee was found to have extended advances to two parties which is claimed to be for purchase of raw material and for booking of an office at Gurgaon. However, Ld. AO found these advances, without any evidences, accordingly pro rata interest expense u/s 36(1)(3) was disallowed. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition on the basis that there was no evidence as at one hand assessee has taken loan on interest while has given advances to third parties for non-business purposes. There is nothing on record to justify these advances and the opinion of ld. Tax Authorities below require no intervention. Accordingly, ground no. 1 and 2 have no substance.

Further, ld. AO had found that sum of Rs. 13,508/- being sales tax was not paid in the prescribed due date and the same was added back. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the same and there is nothing to record to show as to how Section 43(B) of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, ground no. 3 is decided against the assessee.

In regard to ground no. 4 it can be observed that a sum of Rs. 2,36,617/- was received as unsecured loan from two persons whose creditworthiness could not be established by the assessee. On the basis of absence of any evidence establishing genuineness and creditworthiness of the two persons who had allegedly given loan, Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the addition and there is no material to have a different finding. The ground is decided against the assessee.

In regard to ground no. 5 it can be observed that Ld. AO had questioned that the depreciation claimed on computer purchased on 30.03.2010 on the basis that the same could not have been installed all over Himachal Pradesh on the same day or before 31.03.2010 so as to be used for business purposes and Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition as there was no justification of this depreciation. There is no evidence to show any use of the purchase computers on or before 30.03.2010 to form a different opinion. Accordingly the ground no.5 decided against the assessee.

In regard to ground no. 6 it can be observed that the Ld. AO had found the assessee to have made an expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- under the head ‘Labour Charges’ without any supporting vouchers etc. and Ld. CIT(A) has also sustained the same as unvoiced expenses and again in the absence of any evidence, no other opinion can be found.

In the light of aforesaid, as the ground raised in the appeal having no substance. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.