2022 (7) TMI 794 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unconfirmed creditors - disallowance of job work expenses - One of the contentions before Ld. CIT(A) was that the AO in the case of Noble Craft has made double addition as the AO has disallowed job work, and also made an addition in respect of the creditors of Noble Craft - HELD THAT - We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adverted this contention. From the submissions made before the Authorities below, it is quite evident that this amount was considered twice. Therefore, a sum of addition in respect of the creditors of Noble Craft , deleted and rest of the addition is sustained as the assessee has not brought any supporting evidences before this Tribunal. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Unjustified additions by Assessing Officer
2. Disallowance of Job Work Expenses
3. Unconfirmed creditors
4. Double additions made by Assessing Officer
5. Biased approach of Assessing Officer
6. Confirmation of illegal orders by CIT(A)
7. Lack of representation by the assessee during proceedings

Unjustified Additions by Assessing Officer:
The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-15, Delhi, challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant contended that the additions were made in utter disregard of the Principles of Natural Justice and needed to be deleted. However, as no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee, the appeal was heard in the absence of the assessee. The only effective ground raised was against the addition of Rs. 5,40,529/- for unconfirmed creditors and disallowance of job work expenses of Rs. 4,49,486/-.

Disallowance of Job Work Expenses and Unconfirmed Creditors:
The Assessing Officer disallowed job work expenses and made additions in respect of creditors, resulting in a total addition of Rs. 9,90,015/-. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after considering the submissions. The appellant failed to substantiate the claim of expenditure and sundry creditors. Despite providing details of job work expenses and TDS certificates, the parties did not respond to summons, leading to the confirmation of the additions by the Ld. CIT(A). The physical verification could not be done due to non-cooperation from the concerned parties.

Double Additions Made by Assessing Officer:
One of the contentions raised was regarding the double addition made by the Assessing Officer in the case of Noble Craft. The AO disallowed job work expenses of Rs. 3,36,022/- and also made an addition in respect of creditors of Rs. 1,64,611/-. The Tribunal found that this amount was considered twice, leading to the deletion of Rs. 1,64,611/-, while the rest of the addition was sustained due to the lack of supporting evidence brought by the assessee.

Biased Approach and Confirmation of Illegal Orders:
The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer passed the order with a biased approach and without considering the material evidence on record. The Ld. CIT(A) was criticized for confirming the illegal orders of the A.O. However, the Tribunal partly allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, indicating a lack of proper representation and failure to provide substantial evidence during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee, considering the issues related to unconfirmed creditors, disallowance of job work expenses, and the double additions made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing necessary evidence and cooperation during the assessment process to avoid unjustified additions and confirmations by the authorities.