IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.5866/M/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-24
M/s. Salasar Associates, Assistant Commissioner
G-3, Giriraj, of Income Tax,
Salasar Brijbhoomi, Circle-2,
Temba Hospital Road, Room no.27, 6th floor,
Bhayander West, Vs. B-wing, Ashar IT park,
Thane near Ambika Nagar,
Maharashtra – 401 101 Waghle Industrial Estate
PAN: ABUFS6269G Road No.16-Z,
Thane (W)
Pin Code – 400 604
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for:
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 16.01.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025
ORDER
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the
order dated 28.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National
Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.
2 ITA No.5866/M/2024
M/s. Salasar Associates
2. Notice sent to the Assessee for the date of hearing on dated
16-01-2025 has been returned back by the Postal Authority with the
remarks “left” meaning thereby that the Assessee is not situated at
the address mentioned in the form 36. Hence, this Court is inclined
to decide this appeal as ex-parte.
3. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 13 days in
filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that
the partner responsible for overseeing and managing the legal and
financial affairs of the business, was suffering from serious health
issues. The partner’s health condition which required immediate
and ongoing medical attention, significantly impacted, the ability to
attend the important tasks, including filing of the appeal and
therefore the delay of 13 days in filing the instant appeal has been
occurred, which was neither intentional nor malafide or willful but
beyond the control of the Assessee and therefore the delay may
kindly be condoned. On the contrary the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim
of the Assessee. Considering the delay as miniscule and
based on the health issue as genuine and bonafide, the delay
is condoned.
4. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the
Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) vide Assessment order dated
18.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, has made the addition of
Rs.9,35,090/- (Rs.1,35,000/- + Rs.8,00,090/-).
5. The Assessee, being aggrieved against the assessment order
dated 18.03.2016 and making the addition preferred first appeal
before the Ld. Commissioner. However, in spite of granting multiple
opportunities, eventually made no compliance and therefore in the
constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the
appeal of the Assessee.
3 ITA No.5866/M/2024
M/s. Salasar Associates
6. This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the orders
passed by the authorities below. The Assessee has failed to prove
the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the
genuineness of the transactions and therefore the AO made the
addition of Rs.1,35,000/- on account of interest payment made on
unsecured loans raised from M/s. Kinjal Gems Pvt. Ltd. The
Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner as well, failed to file any
documents or any submissions. Therefore, there is no infirmity in
the decisions of the authorities below in making and sustaining the
addition of Rs.1,35,000/-. Thus, need no interference.
7. This Court further observe that the Assessee has claimed a
sum of Rs.8,00,090/- as service tax credit w/off on which the AO
asked the Assessee to produce the documentary evidence to justify
the same, however, the Assessee, till passing of the assessment
order dated 18.03.2016 by the AO and even during the appellate
proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner, has not provided any
details. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence in
support of such payments, the payments cannot be said to be
expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes as
determined by the authorities below and therefore correctly made
and affirmed such disallowance of Rs.8,00,090/-, which needs no
interference.
Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, this Court is inclined not
to interfere in the orders passed by the authorities below and
consequently dismissing the appeal of the Assessee, however, with
liberty to the Assessee to seek recalling of this order by
substantiating the reason of non-appearance before this Court.
4 ITA No.5866/M/2024
M/s. Salasar Associates
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.02.2025.
Sd/-
(NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
