9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nflate the expenditure on the basis of self-made vouchers/in absence of proper bills/vouchers. Further, without producing bills/vouchers of various expenses, the authenticity of the expenses cannot be ascertained. Under these circumstances, I find that the AO was justified to disallow out of the claim of the appellant. Upholding the addition of 20% sundry creditors above confirmations did not contain the PAN of the party and were undated. Even the Ledger account of these parties filed by the assessee only shows that the assessee had been making only cash payment to these parties against purchases of ₹ 20,000/- each on continuous dates. Hardly any payment has been made through cheques. Unexplained cash deposit in the Bank A/c und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks Not Known . The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the change of address, if any. Under these circumstances, we have no other option, but, to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 25.09.2012 declaring total income of ₹ 2,00,150/-, after claiming deduction of ₹ 79,500/- under Chapter-VIA of the I.T. Act, 1961. The return was processed under section 143(1) and thereafter was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 07.08.2013 and was duly served upon the assessee by the ITO, Ward-26(2), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completed the assessment on a total income of ₹ 70,56,545/-. 4.1. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the various additions made by the A.O. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in a) Dismissing the appeal of the assessee. b) Not holding the assessment illegal and invalid in the absence of any valid service of notice u/s 143(2) for selecting the case for scrutiny i.e before the expiry of the time limit permissible for taking the case under scrutiny. c) Not holding the assessment illegal and invalid in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the assessment incorrectly made by the AO u/s 144. 6. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. 7. It is an admitted fact that due to nonappearance of the assessee before the A.O. and non-filing of the details, the A.O. made various additions to the total income of the assessee. We find the Ld. CIT(A) in his elaborate order has sustained the various additions made by the A.O. So far as the disallowance of 20% of the expenses is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) while upholding the addition made by the A.O. has observed as under : In ground no.1, the appellant has challenged the disallowance of ₹ 1,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contain the PAN of the party and were undated. Even the Ledger account of these parties filed by the assessee only shows that the assessee had been making only cash payment to these parties against purchases of ₹ 20,000/- each on continuous dates. Hardly any payment has been made through cheques. It is apparent that the assessee is making purchases from small parties who do not have the capacity to sell their goods on credit. The cash payments have been shown to square up the account on subsequent dates. Thus, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7.2. Similarly, while upholding the addition of unexplained cash deposit in the Bank A/c under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited in the account whether ₹ 56,58,640/- as claimed by the appellant or ₹ 60,22,000/- as claimed by the Assessing Officer. Considering the above facts, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 is confirmed. The grounds of appeal are therefore dismissed. 7.3. Since the assessee did not to appear before the Tribunal and since there is no other evidence before us to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the various additions made by the A.O, we do not find any infirmity in his order. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
