9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y material brought on record by the assessee to rebut the contentions of the Ld. AO/ CIT(A), we decline to interfere. Debit being rent in P L account - AO, keeping in mind the nature of assessee s business came to the conclusion that there was no need for the assessee to pay any rent. He also observed that despite specific query, no details of TDS effected on the said payment were submitted except making a bald statement in the grounds of appeal that the reasons for payment of rent, TDS returns and details already filed have not been appreciated. No evidence at all in support has been submitted either before the Ld. CIT(A) or before us. Therefore, no interference is called for. Ground No. 3 is rejected. Deemed dividend under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.12.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi ( CIT(A) ) pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The assesee has taken following grounds :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A)-9, New Delhi {hereinafter referred to as CIT (A)} is bad in law. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and bad in law as the same has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff and carry forward of brought forward losses of ₹ 3,43,75,838/- from earlier years . 3. Notice of hearing was issued to the assessee on 04.02.2021 fixing the date of hearing on 11.03.2021. None attended on behalf of the assessee though DR was present. Again notice was sent on 09.08.2021 fixing the hearing on 28.10.2021. On this date neither the assessee was present nor the DR. Finally notice was issued on 22.02.2022 fixing the date of hearing on 04.04.2022. Notice has not been served upon the assessee. The postal authorities returned the notice with the remark left . Since the assesee is not traceable, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte after hearing the Ld. DR who is present. 4. Ground 1 and 2 are general in nature. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conciled as per books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the view of the Ld. AO that the books of account of the assessee were not correct and complete. He, therefore upheld the impugned addition. In the absence of any material brought on record by the assessee to rebut the contentions of the Ld. AO/ CIT(A), we decline to interfere. 5.2 As regards debit of ₹ 2,23,71,018/- being rent in P L account, the Ld. AO, keeping in mind the nature of assessee s business came to the conclusion that there was no need for the assessee to pay any rent. He also observed that despite specific query, no details of TDS effected on the said payment were submitted except making a bald statement in the grounds of appeal that the reasons for pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38092788/- whereas as on 31.03.2013 it was ₹ 47335527/-. Thus there was increase in liability during the year of ₹ 9242739/-. The appellant further submitted before the AO that out of such amount an amount of ₹ 13,36,429/- was incurred by M/s Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd on behalf of assessee which amounts were reimbursable in nature and cannot be termed as loan or advances. For balance amount of ₹ 7906310/- the appellant has submitted before the AO that this amount is also not in the nature of loans and advances. These amounts were paid by Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. for incurring expenses since the assessee company is looking after the maintenance of Building Universal Trade tower which was constructed by univer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res of the said company and the explanation of the assessee that the transactions are genuine business transactions and are inclusive of reimbursement of expenses has been overlooked. There is no substance in what the assessee is now stating before us. Before the Ld. AO/CIT(A) the assessee did not give any proper explanation and furnished details of ₹ 12,36,429/- only. For the balance amount no explanation was given except that the amount was given for business need. The findings of the Ld. AO/ CIT(A) remained unassailed before us. We therefore endorse their findings and reject this ground as well. 7. Ground No. 5 relates to denial of set off and carry forward of brought forward losses of ₹ 3,43,75,838/- from earlier years. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
