AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084816069(1), dated 15.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It is evident that the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee's first foremost substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the learned lower authority’s assessment and lower appellate finding inter alia disallowing salary and miscellaneous expenses of Rs.20 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs; respectively.
There does not appear much a dispute between the assessee and the department that he had claimed total salary reimbursement of staff members amounting to Rs.2,01,59,217/-as well as later head of miscellaneous expenses involving very sums which have been roughly disallowed @ 10% without either giving any cogent reasons or rejecting the relevant books of accounts and the detailed supporting documents filed.
Faced with this situation, I find merit in the assessee’s argument that both the impugned disallowance additions could not have been made in its hands. Deleted in very terms.
Next comes the latter twin issues between the assessee and the department i.e. payment disallowance and unsecured loans addition of Rs.2.88 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs; respectively. Both the learned lower authorities record a categoric finding of fact that it could not submit even a copy of relevant rent agreement. The factual position is hardly any difference qua the unsecured loan of Rs.15 lakhs wherein it failed to prove the clinching issue of genuineness both in assessment as well as lower appellate discussion. I thus, rejected the impugned latter substantive twin grounds in very terms.
No other grounds or arguments has been pressed.
The assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.