Case Law Details
Sunrise Jewellers Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack)
Addition of Rs. 1,19,848/- on ad hoc basis without specifying/pinpointing which voucher is not verifiable
After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record along with the paper book filed by the assessee as well as the orders of the authorities below and the written submissions filed by both the sides, we observe in respect of ground No.1(i) that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee did not give details as required by the AO in respect of certain expenses as quoted (supra) and for want of sufficient evidence/vouchers. The AO disallowed the lumpsum of the total expenditure claimed. The contention of the ld. AR is not acceptable that the adhoc disallowance cannot be made. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO specifically asked to the assessee for production of the evidence/bills and vouchers but the assessee did not produce any vouchers. He has rightly confirmed 10% of the total expenditure. The AO was unable to verify the actual expenses incurred by the assessee with proper supporting vouchers. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is rejected. Ld. AR referred to the decision of the CIT(A) in case of Kumar Sunrise Jewellers, we are also not binding on the decision of the CIT(A), therefore, this ground is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.12.2017, passed by the CIT(A), Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2013-2014, on the following grounds of appeal :-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
