TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 8,44,93,063/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer DCIT Circle-5(2)(1) Mumbai, on account of Bad Debts, without taking cognizance of detailed submissions made, arguments advanced and details furnished and making additions in total disregard of the correct facts presented. It is therefore prayed that the entire alleged on account of Bad Debts of Rs. 8,44,93,063/- be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 13,96,242/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer DCIT Circle-5(2)(1) Mumbai, on account of Legal & Financial Charges treating the same to be capital expenditure without taking cognizance of detailed submissions made, arguments advanced and details furnished and making additions in total disregard of the correct facts presented. It is therefore prayed that the entire alleged addition of Rs. 13,96,242/- be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 18,56....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is the first year of its operations. The assessee did not furnish details of bad debts and justification for claiming the said bad debts before the AO. The AO observed that the assessee had claimed bad debts to the tune of Rs. 8,44,93,063/- vide revised return of income filed with Revenue on 31.03.2014, but the corresponding income was not offered to tax and also no details as well justification for claiming bad debts were furnished by the assessee before the AO and hence claim of bad debts of Rs. 8,44,93,063/- was disallowed by the AO which stood added to the income of the assessee vide best judgment assessment order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) read with Section 144 of the 1961 Act. 3.3 The second addition was made to the income of the assessee by AO on account of legal and financial charges to the tune of Rs. 13,96,242/- claimed by the assessee as deduction while computing its income chargeable to income-tax, wherein no evidences were filed by assessee before AO with respect to these legal and financial charges claimed to be incurred by the assessee, which led to the addition made by the AO to the income of the assessee vide assessment order dated 27.03.2015 pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details as to the purpose of taking loan and utilisation of such loans alongwith terms & condition of the bank loans even before Ld. CIT(A), which led learned CIT(A) to uphold the additions as were made by the AO, vide appellate order dated 28.12.2016 passed by learned CIT(A). 4.3 Similarly with respect to claim of depreciation on fixed assets, disallowance thereof was confirmed by learned CIT(A) as no details were submitted by the assessee of the fixed assets acquired/constructed during the previous year relevant to impugned assessment year even before learned CIT(A) and also in the absence of furnishing of evidence of putting these assets to use by the assessee for the purposes of business of the assesse even before learned CIT(A) and hence the additions to the income of the assessee by way of disallowance of depreciation to the tune of Rs. 18,56,259/- were confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 28.12.2016 passed by learned CIT(A). 5. The assessee being aggrieved by appellate order dated 28.12.2016 passed by learned CIT(A) has filed an appeal before the tribunal. 5.2 The assessee did not appear before the Bench when this appeal was called for hearing on 19.03.2019....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er 2017 after a gap of almost one year that the assessee came to know about the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A), which led to filing of this appeal late by 364 days is incomprehensible on touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The assessee was represented by a Chartered Accountant Shri Shukra V. Navalkar, FCA before learned CIT(A) to argue its appeal before learned CIT(A) as per details recorded in appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) and it is incomprehensible on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that a chartered accountant who appeared to argue assessee‟s appeal before learned CIT(A) would not make an enquiry with the assessee or the office of learned CIT(A) for almost one year after conclusion of hearing to know the fate of the appeal of the assessee. Similarly, it is equally incomprehensible on touch stone of preponderance of probabilities that Directors or responsible officers who are in-charge of attending tax matter will make no enquiry with the chartered accountant dealing with tax matter as to the fate of their appeal with learned CIT(A) for almost one year. Thus, we reject condonation application filed by the assessee as no sufficient....