TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 691
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 are that the assessee, a doctor by profession, was during the course of assessment proceedings observed to have received cash loans aggregating to Rs. 9,56,665/- during the relevant year in various sums ranging from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 19,500/-. On being called upon to explain, the same were stated to be from friends and relatives. However, the same were not supported by confirmations. The names and addresses of the creditors were also not furnished. The credits were under the circumstances treated as unexplained. No improvement in its case could be effected by the assessee in appeal. Though the assessee claimed a different aggregate sum, the same stood in fact confirmed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) vide his order u/s.154 dated 17.01.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to do was to produce the A.O.'s letter dated 20.12.2011 (to him), calling for the explanation for the credits (refer page 2 of the assessment order), as well as the assessee's reply thereto in-as-much as, the difference being substantiate, this would be the first objection that the assessee would have raised in the matter. The A.O. has already confirmed per s. 159 order (supra) the figure adopted in assessment to be in terms of the cash-book produced before him during the assessment proceedings. The assessee's balance-sheet (as on 31.03.2009) (now produced), assuming the same as filed along with the return of income, itself shows the unsecured loans as well as the deposits from the patients to be at Rs. 15.96 lacs and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. The assessee's case is wholly unevidenced. Under the circumstances, interference is declined. I decide accordingly. 5. The third and the final ground of appeal relates to the disallowance of consultation fees in the sum of Rs. 1,05,300/-, paid to three doctors, in excess of Rs. 20,000/- each (refer pg. 2 of the assessment order). The same stands disallowed for non-deduction and deposit of tax at source (TDS), and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for the same reason. The assessee's only case before the tribunal is that the amount stood paid during the year, so that no amount was payable as at the year-end and, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) shall not apply, relying on the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v. Addl. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, is mandatory and consequential and, accordingly, there is no merit in the assessee's case. I decide accordingly. 8. Before parting with this order, it is observed that the assessee's appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was delayed by a period of over two months. The said delay was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any explanation for the delay by the assessee (refer para 4 of the impugned order), but who nevertheless proceeded to decide the appeal, i.e., without prejudice. The assessee's, who has not agitated this aspect of the matter before this tribunal, appeal is therefore not maintainable. In fact, the said action of the ld. CIT(A) is not approved of in-as-much as it is only upon admission of appeal that he woul....