9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be time barring case, the AO concluded the assessment, considering the material available on record. 2.1 The AO on perusal of the manufacturing and trading account of the assessee found that there is abnormal increase in stores and spares expenses during the year. This expense is of ₹ 43,77,699/- in the year under consideration as against ₹ 8,88,982/- in the immediately preceding year. From the comparison of figures of opening stock, purchase, sales and closing stock, power expenses, wages and salary, it has been observed that there is no such increase in these items in the year under consideration. The assessee did not justify the reasons for abnormal increase n stores and spares. Since the assessee has not furnished any evidence to justify such increase, it was held that only proportionate increase could be accepted and balance has to be disallowed for want of supporting evidences. The AO accordingly disallowed ₹ 30,25,635/- on this issue. 2.2 The AO further found that the assessee claimed various expenses on account of conveyance, traveling, machinery and repairing, telephone etc. In the absence of any details and non-production of books of account, expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same that the ld. counsel for the assessee did not prepare the written submissions or the paper and no written or oral submissions were made before the ld. CIT(A). No documents were produced in respect of any of the grounds of appeal. Last date fixed for compliance was on 25.01.2012. From July 2008 to Jan. 2012, the ld. CIT(A) has been tolerating indiscipline caused by the assessee and its counsel in not attending the proceedings. During the last four years from 2008 to 2012, despite seeking numerous adjournments by the assessee or his counsel on one pretext or the other, the ld. CIT(A) considered the same sympathetically for giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee accepting all the adjournments of the assessee, but ultimately nothing was done by the assessee or its counsel before the ld. CIT(A) The assessee, therefore, did not avail any opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) during four years when sufficient time was given to file the written submissions or preparation of papers. This attitude of the assessee and their counsel was ultimately not tolerated by the ld. CIT(A), who decided the appeal on merits and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) in absence of any mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has various source of income, which is clear from the audited balance sheet filed in the paper book of the assessee. The ld. DR also pointed out from the audited balance sheet of the year under consideration that electricity charges and excise duty have been paid in part under protest. The DR pointed out that the business premises of the assessee is not closed, but is not functional because of the non-payment of electricity and Excise duty. The ld. DR submitted that the business premises of the assessee is not sealed by any authority. It is closed because of the default on part of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee not only defaulted before other authorities but also defaulted statutory notices before the AO and the ld. CIT(A). The assessee's and their counsel's conduct before the ld. CIT(A) was not appropriate or proper in seeking large number of adjournments and ultimately nothing being produced before the ld. CIT(A) in respect of any of the grounds of appeal. He has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted large number of opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, there is no denial of principle of natural jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome filed in the return of income. Thus, burden upon the assessee has not been discharged at the assessment stage. Further before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee's counsel sought large number of adjournments from 08.07.2008 to 25.01.2012. During the last four years, the assessee's counsel was making wrong statements before the ld. CIT(A) that the written submissions are under preparation, because ultimately no written submission was filed. It is difficult to believe that on four grounds of appeal, it would take four years for preparation of filing of written submissions. Thus, since the beginning itself, the assessee's counsel was making wrong statement before the ld. CIT(A) just to seek adjournment on one or the other pretext. It would also show that the assessee was not having any evidence to support any of the grounds of appeal. Complete details are noted by the ld. CIT(A) in paras 5.1 to 5.4 of the appellate order, in which all the details of adjournments sought by the assessee have been noted, but ultimately, hearing of the appeal was not attended and the ld. CIT(A) shall have also to proceed exparte against the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er connection, but the business premises remained in possession and control of the assessee. Therefore, not taking books of account and other records from the premises in this case cannot be considered as sufficient. The assessee's contention is therefore rejected and cannot be accepted. Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules provides as under : 29. Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal.- The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced. Rule 29 clearly provides that if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit entries in the names of the various Multani bankers appearing in the books of the assessee did not represent genuine transactions and there was information to the effect that such Multani bankers had only indulged in hawala transactions by merely lending their names. The Tribunal, however, held that the borrowings from the multani bankers were all genuine transactions and the fact that the assessee had produced the discharged hundis was enough to accept her explanation. On a reference: Held, (1) that, in the instant case, the Tribunal acted on the sole interested statement of the assessee and even though crossed cheques were available, they were not produced and, hence, the Tribunal's conclusion was not correct. (2) that taking into consideration the difference in peak credit transactions between the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 (under reference), a sum of ₹ 16,000 was the income earned by the assessee from other sources. The assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of interest said to have been paid on the hundi loans. 7. The assessee has not made out any case that the authorities below have decided the case of the assessee without giving suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
