HELIX CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., GURUGRAM V. ITO, WARD2(1), GURUGRAM

ITA 1115/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9645 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 37; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 1115/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1115/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Helix Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 10 th Floor, C-Wing, JMD Megapolis, Sector-48, Gurgaon. PAN- AACCH2826E Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Gurgaon APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 29.09.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Gurgaon, dated 20.11.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2 [Learned ‘CIT(A)’] has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of INR 1,034,674 being loss on sale of assets, without appreciating that the said loss already stood disallowed in the computation of taxable income, as reported in the return of income for the year, thereby resulting in a double disallowance. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts, in confirming the disallowance of INR 822,872under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact, in confirming the ad-hoc disallowance made by Ld. AO, based on conjectures and surmises that there could be a 'Leakage' if the expenses were not incurred for the purpose of the business of 2 ITA no. 1115/Del/2018 the Assessee, without actually analyzing such expenses in light of nature of business of the Assessee. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact, by confirming the ad-hoc disallowance made by Ld. AO, because percentage of profit earned by the Assessee, as computed by Ld. CIT(A), was in his opinion, too less. 5. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of INR 382,990 on account of differences in reconciliation of Form 26AS and revenue of the Assessee 6. That Ld CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law, in treating copies of ledger accounts, and other similar accounting records as allegedly "self serving documents”, and not considering them as acceptable evidence of transactions in question. 7. That on facts and in law, the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is bad in law, in as much as it failed to appreciate the facts of the instant case and the law applicable thereto. 8. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO without appreciating that the same was passed without following the principles of natural justice and was without jurisdiction.” 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income through electronic mode on 29.11.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 1,99,820/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment u/s 143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) was framed vide order dated 07.12.2016. The Assessing Officer noticed that there was difference in respect of receipts related to sales. The assessee was given opportunity to reconcile the same but he failed to do so. Therefore, the Assessing officer made addition of Rs. 3,82,990/- in the income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing officer noticed that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 1,05,05,194/- under the head ‘construction expenses’. The Assessing Officer further noticed that most of the expenses were reimbursed on internal bills. Similarly, other 3 ITA no. 1115/Del/2018 expenditure, related to travelling and conveyance expenses, office expenses and misc. expenses were claimed. The Assessing Officer thus disallowed 1/15 th of the expenditure claimed by the assessee and a sum of Rs. 8,22,872/- was added into the income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs. 10,34,674/- under the head ‘loss on sale of assets’. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the Assessing officer disallowed the claim regarding loss of Rs. 10,34,674/- and added the same into the income of the assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 24,40,356/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,99,820/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. No one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that notices sent by the Registry have been returned by the Postal Department. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 4. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given adverse finding regarding the bills produced by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing officer was justified in disallowing the expenditure on estimation basis. 5. I have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessee has claimed expenditure most of which were reimbursed on internal bills 4 ITA no. 1115/Del/2018 without any supporting evidence. The assessee has not contradicted the finding of AO by placing any contrary evidence to support the expenditure. In the absence of such material, I do not see any reason to take a contrary view. Grounds raised in appeal are dismissed. 6. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 29 th September, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI