TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 08.02.2022, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. From the history of hearings mentioned above, it can be seen that sufficient opportunity has already been given to the appellant but appellant has failed to avail the opportunity. Therefore, the appeal is being decided in the absence of representation from the appellant's representative. 4. The ld. DR pointed out that the assessee filed the appeal beyond statutory time limit. It is also urged that the assessee's appeal is delayed by 86 days. The Director of the appellant company Mr. Vinay Shah filed an affidavit along with condonation application. It is mentioned by the Director of the appellant company that the company has discontinued its business and there are no employees. The CIT(A)'s order was dropped into the office premises of appellant. 5. The condonation application and affidavit has been considered. The reasons given by the appellant are valid and sufficient. We have gone through the condonation petition as well as the affidavit and have found that reasons specified therein are justified and that the delay cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee neither through intention nor through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the matter, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 10. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rent of Rs. 41,08,553/- incurred for Office situated at Mumbai 2. The Learned CIT(A) has further erred in disallowing advertisement expenses of Rs. 36,76,778/- 3. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in disallowing Security expenses of Rs. 22,22,187/- 4. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in disallowing Interest on Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 29,89,381/-. 5. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in disallowing Interest for delay in payment of TDS to the tune of Rs. 86,169 11. In this case, assessment order was passed ex-parte. However, the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant before the CIT(A). The appellant filed additional evidences before the CIT(A), who had called for remand report. The CIT(A) had also issued Summons u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Based on material on record, the CIT(A) passed order dated 24.03.2017. Against the said order, appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal. Ground No.1 - Disallowance of Rent of Rs. 41,08,55....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The expenditure should not be of personal nature. The expenditure should have been incurred wholly or exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession. The business should be commenced. 12.3 Thus the fundamental principle in allowing expenditure under Section 37 is that it should full fill the conditions mentioned above. The expenditure should have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the Appellant. In this case the appellant has not filed any documents to establish that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the expenditure. The burden of proof is on appellant. Appellant failed to discharge the same. 12.4 Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of rent of Rs. 41,08,553/- is upheld. The ground of appeal No.1 is thus, dismissed. Ground No.2 - Disallowance of Advertisement expenses of Rs. 36,76,778/- 13. The appellant has claimed advertisement expenses of Rs. 42,40,578/- under the broader head "Administrative and Selling expenses" of Rs. 1,81,46,847/-. No documents were filed before the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of expenditure. As per CIT(A)'s order, the appellant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra. The appellant failed to prove that it fulfilled the conditions required to be fulfilled for claiming deduction u/s 37 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow Rs. 36,76,778/- is upheld. The ground of appeal No.2 is thus, dismissed. Ground No.3 - Disallowance of Security Expenses of Rs. 22,22,187/- 14. The CIT(A) has mentioned that the appellant company has claimed to have paid Rs. 22,22,187/- to M/s. B.S.S. Security Services, Jalna and B Plus Surksha, Jalna. The CIT(A) directed the AO to issue Summons to these persons. The AO after conducting necessary enquiries filed remand report that the genuineness of said security expenses was in doubt as both the entities failed to respond to Summons u/s 131 of the Act. The CIT(A) forwarded the copy of remand report to the appellant. The authorized representative of the appellant appeared before the CIT(A) to express his inability to furnish bank statements and other details. Based on these facts, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 22,22,187/-. 14.1 The onus lies on the appellant to prove the genuineness of expenses claimed by the appellant as to prove by documentary evidence the genuineness of expenditure claimed....