Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1225 - AT - Income TaxOrder passed by CIT(A) without providing opportunity to appellant - CIT(A) decided the appeal on ex-parte basis - HELD THAT:- Assessee claimed that ld. CIT(A) has not provided opportunity to the assessee. The assessee claimed that adjournment applications on account of non-availability of Authorized Representative due to ill health of his father and personal reasons. However no such adjournment letter or medical certificate produced before us by the assessee. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is hereby rejected. Disallowance u/s 80GGC - donation made to political party - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not produced any additional evidence in support of its claim. In fact the assessee had stated that it had cordial relationship with Mr. Kamlendu Tripathi Secretary of RSP and no other criteria was followed for making these donations. A.O. made a detailed enquiry of RSP and its Bank accounts and transfer of funds to one Shri Mukesh Mehta proprietor of two firms and he transferred it to Waheguru Enterprise and Sapan Traders, which is clearly a systematic financial maneuver to legitimate illicit moneys and evade taxes. It is appropriate to follow the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment, wherein SLP filed by the assessee is dismissed confirming the Tribunal’s decision to come to the conclusion that the entire loan transaction was not genuine, in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi [2018 (7) TMI 1155 - SC ORDER]. In the absence of any evidence from the assessee, the grounds raised by the assessee are untenable and therefore the same is rejected. The findings given by the lower authorities does not require any interference and the addition is sustained. Addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) - Difference between value adopted for stamp duty and purchase consideration for the land - HELD THAT:- A.R. could not produce before us the assessee’s share of 24.35% namely the proportionate amount being the difference in market value and purchase consideration which is being treated as income of the assessee u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the absence of any further details, we have no other option of confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Thus this ground raised by the assessee is also rejected.
|