TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was adjourned to 02.06.2015 by issue of notice through RDAD. However, on the appointed date of hearing i.e. 02.06.2015, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment. We proceed to decide the present appeal after hearing the Ld. DR for the Revenue. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in deciding the appeal filed by your appellant as ex-parte. The last notice of hearing dt.8.11.2010 for hearing on 19.11.2010 was not received by your appellant. 2. The Ld. C.LT. (A) erred in not considering the facts of the case mentioned in the Statement of Facts submitted along with Form of Appeal. 3. The L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 20% of several expenses namely conveyance, delivery, labour, salaries, shop expenses and staff welfare on account that they are not verified without considering the submissions / details submitted and which are lying before the ld. Assessing Officer. So your goodselves is requested to delete the said disallowance. 7. The Ld. C.l.T. (A) erred in dismissing the ground No.5 in holding the disallowance of depreciation Rs. 87,731/- being depreciation on vehicles (i.e. mini-truck / passenger car) without considering the submissions / details submitted and which are lying before the ld. Assessing Officer. So your goodselves is requested to delete the said disallowance." 3. The issue in ground of appeal no. 1 and 2 is against the ex-parte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding the order of CIT(A) dismiss the ground of appeal no. 3 raised by the assessee. 6. The issue IN ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is against addition of Rs. 6,46,097/-. The AO noted that as against G.P. rate of 14% declared in the preceding year, for the year under consideration the assessee had declared G.P. rage of 6%. The assessee was specifically asked to explain the fall in G.P. rate. In reply the assessee submitted that for the year under consideration, he was engaged in wholesale business wherein his turnover had increased. Till last year the assessee was engaged in retail business. The AO noted that the submission of the assessee cannot be accepted for the following reasons:- (i) The partywise details of sales submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P@ 14% estimated Less GP @ 6% declared by the assessee on retail sale of Rs. 80,76,223/- worked out as under, is added back to the total income of the assessee. Retail sales = Rs. 80,76,223/- Estimated GP @ 14% Less Declared GP @ 6% = GP @ 8% Differential GP @ 8% of Rs. 80,76,223/- = Rs. 6,46,097/- In view thereof addition of Rs. 6,46,097/- was made on account of fall in G.P. rate. 7. After going through the statement of facts filed along with appeal memo and in the absence of the assessee having failed to produce the original purchase and sale bills and also purchase and sale register, the CIT(A) up held the addition of Rs. 6,46,097/-. The assessee has failed to controvert finding of the CIT(A) and in the absence of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose not to represent his case before the AO. Further, the AO had issued notices under section 133(6) which in some cases the notices were returned unserved as the parties were not found on the addresses given by the appellant and in some cases the confirmation given by those parties did not match with the liability declared by the appellant. The amounts involved on such type of cases are Rs. 5,30,266/- in the case of M/s. Yuppa International, Rs. 4,44,708/- in the case of M/s. I.G. International and Rs. 7,82,160/- in the case of Mr. Rajkumar Yashwant Karle totaling to Rs. 17,57,134/-. In this case the onus is on the appellant to prove the genuineness of liability shown by him. The appellant has filed to do so with respect to the three part....