Global Perspectives, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4553/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1116 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 32; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4553/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Global Perspectives B-10/7402, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070 PAN No. AACFG 3932 H Vs. ACIT Circle – 33(1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 06.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 3. Assessee is a firm stated to be engaged in the business of representation and marketing in Telecom Products and Services. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 2 on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.68,15,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and, thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2013 and the total income was determined at Rs.82,80,820/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 29.06.2016 in Appeal No.188/15-16 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of AO in disallowing depreciation of Rs.11,67,000/- on the Furniture and Fixture. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of AO in disallowing of Rs.1,44,287/- on account of cash payment more than Rs.20,000/-. 4. The appellant craves for leave to add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the AO on the above ground be set aside.” 4. The case file reveals that the appeal was listed for hearing on 07.03.2019, 13.05.2019, 18.07.2019, 07.10.2019, 05.12.2019, 12.02.2020, 20.04.2020, 02.07.2020, 01.09.2020, 28.10.2020, 06.01.2021, 11.03.2021, 12.05.2021, 22.07.2021, 27.09.2021, 24.11.2021, 27.01.2022, 07.04.2022, 30.06.2022 and 06.10.2022. On all the occasions, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite notices issued through RPAD nor any application was filed seeking for adjournment. Further, 3 the notice issued by the Registry through RPAD was returned unserved with the postal remarks “no such person”. Assessee has not filed any document informing the change of address. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R. 5. Ground No.1 is with respect to the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.11,67,000/- on the Furniture & Fixture and Ground No.2 is with respect to addition made on account of cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000/-. Both the grounds are considered together. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings and on perusing the Profit and Loss account, AO noticed that assessee had claimed depreciation u/s 32 of the Act for full year on furniture and fixture attached in the flat at Belaire, DLF, Gurgaon @10% on Rs.1,16,70,000/- claiming it to be for the purpose of business. The assessee was asked to justify and demonstrate that the said property at Gurgaon was used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business activities. AO noted that assessee did not furnish any concrete evidence to prove that the flat during the period under consideration was being used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business activities. He accordingly, disallowed the depreciation in respect of the furniture and fixture attached at Gurgaon property at Rs.11,67,000/-. 4 7. AO on perusing the ledger account of the Vehicle Repair & Maintenance noticed that assessee had made various cash payments above Rs.20,000/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of cash expenses and to justify the reasons for making the cash payments. AO noted that assessee could not furnish any convincing justification to explain the reason for cash expenses. He, therefore, disallowed all the cash payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- aggregating to Rs.1,44,287/- u/s 40A(3)(a) of the Act and made its disallowance. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made by AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 8. Before us, Learned DR took us through the findings of AO and CIT(A). He supported the order of lower authorities. 9. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal of the assessee is about the disallowance of depreciation and disallowance made u/s 40A(3)(a) of the Act being cash payment more than Rs.20,000/-. We find that AO for the reasons stated in the order had disallowed the payments for the reasons stated in the order. The order of AO was upheld by CIT(A). However, when the appeal is filed before the Tribunal by the assessee himself against the orders of the lower authorities, it is expected that the assessee may put forth some documentary evidences in support of his contentions to decide the appeal as it is the duty of the 5 assessee to lead evidence in support of its claim and for the adjudicating authority to decide upon the sustainability of the claim on the basis of the evidence led by the parties before it. However, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite numerous adjournments allowed and notices issued through RPAD. No material has been placed by assessee to controvert the findings of lower authorities. In this view of the aforesaid facts and in absence of any contrary material brought on record to rebut the findings of lower authorities, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus we dismiss the grounds of the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.10.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 12.10.2022 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI