TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grit and sand. The return of income was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 16,41,890/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for details and supporting documents/vouchers in respect of the various expenses debited in the Profit & Loss Account amounting to Rs. 3,53,81,485/-. The Assessing Officer, in absence of bills and vouchers and relevant details being produced, proceeded to disallow 25% of this total expenditure of Rs. 3,53,84,485/-. Making an adhoc disallowance of Rs. 88,46,121/, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,04,88,010/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the assessee's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been validly assumed. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that there is a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted to be heard on merits. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit submitted by the assessee in this regard and submitted that there was a change in the partnership firm w.e.f 01.02.2019 and the new partners came to know of the outstanding demand for the captioned Assessment Year when a notice u/s 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was received. It was submitted that thereafter, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance @ 25% without any basis. It was submitted that the fact of there being a dispute among the partners was within the knowledge of the Assessing Officer itself but he did not give due credence to the same, although, he has mentioned the same in the body of assessment order itself. The Ld. AR also submitted a Chart showing gross profit as well as net profit in the earlier two years i.e., Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer had rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the fact that the books of account were duly audited and copy of audited financial statements had been filed along with return of income. The Ld. AR submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e.f 1st February, 2019. The Ld. AR has also filed a detailed matrix regarding the change in the constitution of partnership firm during the preceding years which is duly evidenced by the different partnership deeds executed whenever there was a change in the constitution of the partnership firm. In such a situation, it is our considered opinion that given the history of the dispute among the partners, no purpose would be served, if the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for being examined afresh as it is quite possible that the relevant vouchers and documents / books of account might not be available now. 8.1 On a query from the Bench, the Ld. AR also was not in a position to give an undertaking that if the matter i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer for the purposes of verification. The onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the returned income and also to demonstrate that the claim of expenditure was genuine. We are in complete agreement with the observation of the Assessing Officer that since the assessee had failed to produce bills and vouchers relating to the various expenses debited in the Profit and Loss Account, complete and correct profit cannot be deduced from such books of account. Since, the assessee had failed to produce the relevant bills and vouchers, we uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account. 8.3 However, although the assessee did not produce the relevant vouchers and bills before the Assessing ....