Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) Prayer to annul assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act; being void-ab-initio.

(ii) Against confirming addition in respect of foreign travel Rs.1,00,000/-;

(iii) Against confirming addition on account of unexplained jewellery Rs.15,60,000/-;

(iv) Against upholding addition in respect of unaccounted sales Rs.1,40,441/-;&

(v) Against upholding addition on account unexplained sundry creditors Rs.17,05,282/-.

The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal raising an alternate plea to the issues raised in ground No.4 & 5 i.e. the assessee was not required to maintain books of account as the assessee was following presumptive method of taxation u/s. 44AF of the Act.

ITA NO.3349/MUM/2013(A.Y.2008-09) 4.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee made an alternate plea raised by way of additional ground that the Assessing Officer could not have made addition in respect of unaccounted stock and unexplained sundry creditors as the assessee was not required to maintain books of account. As the assessee is following presumptive method of taxation u/s. 44AF of the Act.

5. Per contra, Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee is recalcitrant. The assessee did not co-operate with the Assessing Officer and failed to furnish return of income in response to notice dated 30/11/2009 issued u/s. 153A of the Act in time. Objecting to the additional ground raised by the assessee, the ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee has never followed presumptive method of taxation u/s. 44AF of the Act. The ld. Departmental Representative placed on record a copy of return of income filed on 19/11/2010 filed belatedly in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. The ld. Departmental Representative pointed that a specific question is asked in return of income i.e. "Are you liable to maintain accounts as per section 44A?". The assessee has answered the said question as "Yes". Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee that the assessee is not liable to maintain books of accounts as the assessee is maintaining presumptive method of taxation u/s. 44AF of the Act is an after thought. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee has not been able to give details of foreign travel despite that the CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee. The CIT(A) has been considerate and liberal in granting relief to the assessee . Similarly, in respect of unaccounted sales/difference in stock, the CIT(A) after examining the documents on record had granted relief and has restricted the addition to Rs.1,40,441/- only, i.e. to ITA NO.3349/MUM/2013(A.Y.2008-09) the extent, assessee was unable to explain the deficit stock. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the findings of CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that no documentary evidence was produced by the assessee in support of his contention with respect unexplained sundry creditors. Hence, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. The ld. Departmental Representative prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal of assessee.

12. After examining the documents on record we find that the additional ground raised by the assessee, even if, admitted would not support the cause of assessee. The claim of assessee in additional ground is that the assessee is ITA NO.3349/MUM/2013(A.Y.2008-09) not required to maintain books of account, as the assessee is following presumptive method of taxation u/s. 44AF. This please of the assessee is not tenable as in the return of income filed on 19/11/2010 the assessee hasadmitted the fact that the assessee is liable to maintain accounts as per section 44AA of the Act. Further, if the assessee was not maintaining books of accounts and was following presumptive method of taxation u/s. 44AF of the Act, the assessee has not raised this plea either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The fresh plea raised by the assessee is contrary to the documents on record. The plea raised by way of additional ground of appeal is an after thought and a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) . We find no merit in the additional grounds raised, hence, the same is dismissed.