ORDER
P.N. Parashar, J.M.:
This appeal has been filed by the assessed against order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 13-6-1997, for assessment year 1993-94.
2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 7-11-2002. On that date the appeal was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the assessed to 1-1-2003. Thereafter, the appeal has been listed on several dates but none has appeared. Thereafter the appeal was adjourned to 29-4-2003, and from 29-4-2003 to 13-6-2003. For 13-6-2003, notice dated 13-5-2003, was sent through registered post but the assessed has not turned up. Since notice was sent through registered post, it is presumed that the assessed has been served with the notice of hearing. This appeal is, therefore, being decided on merits after hearing learned Departmental Representative and after considering the entire material on record including the paper book filed by the assessed, which is on record.
3. Ground Nos. I to 4 : These grounds are directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) for not admitting the fresh material. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessed made a request for admission of additional evidence by way of affidavit and copy of bank account in support of the explanation for the addition to the capital. Since the assessed failed to state the circumstances under which additional evidence could not be filed, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the case made out by the assessed now that it was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the additional evidence before the assessing officer was not correct. He, therefore, rejected the request for admitting the additional evidence.
4. After going through the assessment order and the appellate order, we justify the approach of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Since the assessing officer had asked the assessed to explain the credit of Rs. 1,60,000 introduced by Smt. Anju Jain and also asked to adduce the evidence in support of the source of deposit, the assessed was under obligation to adduce evidence at that stage. Hence, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the prayer at the appellate stage. We, therefore, uphold the view of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue in question. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 are, therefore, rejected.
5. Ground No. 5 : This ground is directed against sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,60,000 on account of credit in the account of Smt. Anju Jain. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the facts relating to this credit in para 3 of the appellate order. Since the assessed could not show that the creditor was assessed to tax, if our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the order of the assessing officer in treating the credit as non-genuine. It may also be pointed out that this was not the first year of the commencement of the business because for earlier assessment year 1992-93 also the assessed had filed return. Further, the assessed had not taken the stand before the assessing officer nor had filed any document to prove that this was the first year of the business of the assessed-firm. In view of these facts, the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad in the case of Jaiswal Motors was not applicable. We see no reason to interfere in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Ground fails.
6. Ground No. 6 : This ground is directed against sustenance of addition of Rs. 1,05,000, The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this addition, which was made on account of three loan transactions. The assessing officer had held that the assessed had failed to discharge the burden that is cast upon it to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. On this issue also additional evidence was sought to be filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who declined to admit the same. He has also considered the issue on merit and held that the identity of the creditors was not proved as no confirmatory letter was filed from the creditors. After going through the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we uphold his finding on this issue also.
7. Ground No. 7 : This ground is taken for challenging the sustenance of disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,656 paid to the creditors. Since credits appearing in different names have been doubted and addition has been made on account of such credits/loans, in our view, the disallowance of interest is fully justified. This ground is, therefore, rejected.
8. Ground No. 8 : This ground is directed against sustenance of addition of Rs. 21,77,918 representing the difference between the stock physically available with the assessed as on 31-3-1993, and that shown in the statement submitted to the bank against hypothecation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the issue in para 7 of his order. The assessed had shown the stock as on 31-3-1993 at nil whereas to the bank he declared the value of closing stock at Rs. 21,77,918. Thus, the assessed was guilty of low morality. After going through the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we uphold his finding on this issue also. Ground fails.
9. Ground No. 9 : This ground relates to charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. This ground is consequential.
10. Ground No. 10 is general in nature and requires no comments.
11. In the result, assessed’s appeal stands dismissed.