TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. Divatia, AR For The Respondent : Shri B.Panda, Sr.DR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 27/08/2015 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- [1] The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the following expenses through the total income of the collective disposal of labour of its members is deductible u/s. 80P(2)(vi) of the I. T. Act. Net Profit as per Profit and Loss A/c. Rs.1,56,991/- Labour Expenses Rs.5,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the authorities were not justified in making the addition and confirming the same. He submitted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to represent his case. He reiterated the submissions as were made in the statement of facts. 3.1. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that it was incumbent upon the assessee to prove the expenditure by filing supporting evidences. But the assessee in the present case has grossly failed to do so. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the AO observed that the issues raised by the AO in the original assessment order dated 08/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 11/08/2015 - AR of the appellant sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 25/08/2015. 4.1. The ld.CIT(A) proceeded to decide the issues in para 2.3 to 3.1 by observing as under:- 2.3. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the written submission of the appellant. In this case, original assessment u/s. 143(3) has been completed on 08/12/2010 with the addition of ₹ 5 lacs as unexplained labour expenses, ₹ 1,27,213/- as Income Tax, ₹ 15,225/- as surcharge and ₹ 1,90,754/- as penalty totalling to ₹ 8,33,192/-. On appeal of the appellant, the CIT(A), Ahmedabad-VIII, vide order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses, penalties etc. Even the claim of expenditure towards Income Tax and surcharge is not a deductible expenditure. The appellant has not obtained any audit report and also did not submit the books of accounts for verification to show their bonafides, but it was simply stated that the books were lost, hence could not be produced. Even in support of its contention, the appellant has not provided any copy of FIR lodged for proof for the submission. Thus, the claims made by the appellant towards labour expenses were held to be non - genuine and fictitious and only concocted transactions to claim the deduction only. Therefore, the AO's action for making the disallowance is found correct and justified. Although several opportunities were gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015 26/08/2015 on account of Gujarat Bandh and therefore no opportunity has been available to the appellant. 4.3. From the records, it is evidence that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to furnish the evidences in support of its claim of expenses. The authorities below have recorded that no evidences were furnished. Even before this Tribunal also, no paper-book is filed by the assessee enclosing the evidences related to expenditure claimed. Under these facts, we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee. Hence, the grounds raised in this assessee s appeal are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on Friday, the 26th day of February, 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
