2015 (1) TMI 2 - AT - Income Tax

Disllowance of various expenses - Ex parte order - Held that - CIT(A) has followed the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax as reported in 1981 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY High Court wherein it was held that when the details are not furnished claim could be disallowed on the ground that the assessee has not established the expenditure. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Motor General Finance Ltd. as reported in 2001 (12) TMI 62 - DELHI High Court wherein it was held that if the assessee fails to produce documents, adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that if produced they would have gone against the assessee . In support of the same contention, CIT( A) has also followed another judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of 2011 (9) TMI 546 - DELHI HIGH COURT , CIT vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd . We find that a clear finding is given by CIT( A) that the Assessing Officer has allowed all those expenses which could be verified in course of assessment proceedings. The assessee has not appeared before the CIT( A) or before us to make out a case that any expenses which was allowable has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Considering these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT( A). - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal ex-parte by CIT (A)
2. Disallowance of depreciation
3. Addition/disallowance of amount waived off by UPFC under OTS
4. Addition/disallowance under section 41(1)
5. Disallowance of expenses in in-operating units
6. Addition/disallowance of notional interest
7. Addition on account of prior period expenses
8. Disallowance of listing fee u/s 43B
9. Disallowance on account of penalty
10. Jurisdictional issue due to different officers involved
11. Failure to decide appeal on merits ground-wise

Dismissal of Appeal Ex-Parte by CIT (A):
The appellant's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT (A) for non-appearance despite notice. The tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte in the absence of the appellant.

Disallowance of Depreciation:
The CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance of depreciation made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant challenged this disallowance, but the tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision based on the lack of evidence provided by the appellant to establish the expenditure.

Addition/Disallowance of Amount Waived Off by UPFC under OTS:
The tribunal confirmed the addition/disallowance of an amount waived off by UPFC under OTS as made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contested this decision, but the tribunal upheld it based on precedents where adverse inferences can be drawn if necessary documents are not produced.

Addition/Disallowance under Section 41(1):
The tribunal upheld the addition/disallowance made under section 41(1) by the Assessing Officer. The appellant's challenge was dismissed as the Assessing Officer had allowed expenses that could be verified during the assessment proceedings, and the appellant failed to prove otherwise.

Jurisdictional Issue Due to Different Officers Involved:
The appellant raised a jurisdictional issue stating that the assessing officer and the officer issuing notice were of different ranks, and the appellant was not served any order for a change in jurisdiction. However, this issue was not substantiated further in the judgment.

Failure to Decide Appeal on Merits Ground-Wise:
The appellant contended that the CIT (A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits ground-wise, summarily dismissing it without a speaking order. The tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the CIT (A)'s decision based on the facts presented.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the decisions made by the CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer regarding the various disallowances and additions, citing the lack of evidence and failure to prove the expenses claimed. The jurisdictional issue raised was not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the failure to decide the appeal on merits ground-wise was not considered a valid ground for interference.