New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 639 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (6) TMI 639 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Appeal decided ex-parte - Held that:- The appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte on the basis of material on record. In the absence of the assessee having explained reason for non attendance before the CIT(A) on different dates of hearing, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee. Author plea raised by the assessee was that CIT(A) had not considered the statement of facts filed by assessee. However, perusal of order of CIT(A) reflects that the stat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntly we up holding the order of CIT(A) dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. - Decided against assessee.

Adddtion on account of Short fall in G.P. - Held that:- After going through the statement of facts filed along with appeal memo and in the absence of the assessee having failed to produce the original purchase and sale bills and also purchase and sale register, the CIT(A) up held the addition of ₹ 6,46,097/-. The assessee has failed to controvert finding of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the ground of appeal - Decided against assessee.

Disallowance to the extent of 20% out of conveyance, delivery, labour, salaries shop expenses and staff welfare - Held that:- As before the CIT(A) assessee failed to file any details and hence the addition made by the AO was confirmed. Even before us despite an opportunity being granted, the assessee has failed to appear and justify the nature of expenses and file requisite details. In the absence of the same we find no merit in the gro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ence of the same we find no merit in the claim of the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1428/Mum/2013 - Dated:- 10-6-2015 - SHRI R. C. SHARMA and Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA,JJ. For the Petitioner: None For the Respondent : Shri M. Rajan ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: The appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 22.11.2010 relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act. 2. Despite appeal being fix .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in deciding the appeal filed by your appellant as ex-parte. The last notice of hearing dt.8.11.2010 for hearing on 19.11.2010 was not received by your appellant. 2. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in not considering the facts of the case mentioned in the Statement of Facts submitted along with Form of Appeal. 3. The Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the ground No.1 taken by your appellant with stating as "To my mind there is not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mission that your appellant had changed from retail sale to whole sale business during the said previous year therefore the G.P. (Gross Profit) is not comparable with the last year's ratio. So your goodselves is requested to delete the said addition. 5. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in dismissing the ground No.3 in holding the addition of ₹ 17,57,134/- under section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account to prove the genuineness of the liability without considering the submission that your a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e on account that they are not verified without considering the submissions / details submitted and which are lying before the ld. Assessing Officer. So your goodselves is requested to delete the said disallowance. 7. The Ld. C.l.T. (A) erred in dismissing the ground No.5 in holding the disallowance of depreciation ₹ 87,731/- being depreciation on vehicles (i.e. mini-truck / passenger car) without considering the submissions / details submitted and which are lying before the ld. Assessing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee having explained reason for non attendance before the CIT(A) on different dates of hearing, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee. Author plea raised by the assessee was that CIT(A) had not considered the statement of facts filed by assessee. However, perusal of order of CIT(A) reflects that the statement of facts are incorporated ground wise. Hence we find no merit in the plea of the assessee. The grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. The issue i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Act is independent from the powers of the JCIT to issue direction in certain cases under section 144A of the Act. Consequently we up holding the order of CIT(A) dismiss the ground of appeal no. 3 raised by the assessee. 6. The issue IN ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is against addition of ₹ 6,46,097/-. The AO noted that as against G.P. rate of 14% declared in the preceding year, for the year under consideration the assessee had declared G.P. rage of 6%. The assessee was specificall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d amounts have been given. The minimum and maximum amount of sale in case of single party is shown as ₹ 5650/- and ₹ 9745270/-. At Sr. No. 40 the following details are given. Sr. No. Name of the party Amount (Rs.) 40 Sundry parties/cash sales 80,76,223 From the above narration, it can be understood that the amount of ₹ 80,76,223/- pertains to retail sales. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings the AR has explained that wherever Sales are made on retail for domest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that all the papers, documents, books kept in the shop got we and damage, however, no supporting evidence has been furnished such as insurance claim etc. Hence, assessee s contention cannot be accepted. As such the gross profit on retail sales is estimated at 14% as declared by the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07. The difference amount of G.P. i.e. GP@ 14% estimated Less GP @ 6% declared by the assessee on retail sale of ₹ 80,76,223/- worked out as under, is added back to the total income of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77; 6,46,097/-. The assessee has failed to controvert finding of the CIT(A) and in the absence of the same and the assessee having failed to file original purchase and sale bills before the authorities below, we are inconformity with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the ground of appeal no. 4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Now coming to the ground no. 5 the issue is with regard to the addition made under section 41(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee had failed to reconcile ba .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ently where the assessee had failed to explain and prove the said liability, addition of ₹ 17,57,134/- was made under section 41(1) of the Act. The said addition was up held by the CIT(A) as though the issue was raised before the CIT(A), but the assessee fail to file reconciliation statement. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) are vide para 5.1 which read as under:- I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in the statement of facts .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

266/- in the case of M/s. Yuppa International, ₹ 4,44,708/- in the case of M/s. I.G. International and ₹ 7,82,160/- in the case of Mr. Rajkumar Yashwant Karle totaling to ₹ 17,57,134/-. In this case the onus is on the appellant to prove the genuineness of liability shown by him. The appellant has filed to do so with respect to the three parties mentioned above. Therefore, in my considered view, the AO is quite justified in making the addition of ₹ 17,57,134/- under sectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version