2020 (12) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....raised without prejudice to each other: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.[A] has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,87,483.00 made by the learned Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the IT Act exclusively on assumption/presumption basis and ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case. The aforesaid addition being arbitrary, perverse, based on surmises and conjecture the learned C.I.T.[A] ought to have deleted the said addition. The impugned addition may please be deleted. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.[A] has erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 21,60,605.00 made by disallowances of statutory payment in respect of service tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before the Assessing Officer or during the course of Appellate Proceedings to corroborate assessee‟s stand. The Assessing Officer had categorically requested to the Ld. AR of the assessee to submit names, address and PAN of the parties regarding the trade payables along with confirmation letters and also informed him that the same will be disallowed u/s.68 of the Act, if he fails to submit the details. Despite such clear directions, the assessee had only furnished the names of parties without any further details as called for by the Assessing Officer. 5. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also, the assessee was unable to furnish relevant evidences, documents to substantiate its case on merits in spite of several opportunities being ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce Tax which have been outstanding for more than 6 months from the date they became payable. The assessee has claimed that though such amounts are payable they do not pertain to the relevant FY except for Rs. 2,25,717/- which pertains to the current year and has been disallowed in the computation of income. However, no details/evidences whatsoever have been filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of its claim that the balance amount pertains to earlier years. In absence of these evidences, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 9. We have already made our observations with regard to Ground No.1 in the aforesaid Paragraph (Para No.6) and the same....