MEKASTER ENGINEERING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4425/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 March 2023AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, finding no mitigating circumstances to interfere due to the assessee's continued non-cooperation and lack of rebuttal.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear and provide evidence before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the ITAT despite multiple opportunities. The Assessing Officer made additions to the returned income, which were confirmed by the CIT(A) on an ex-parte basis.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) are justified in the absence of any evidence or rebuttal from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Khanna, Sr.DR

The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 23.03.2016 arising from the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:

“1. The order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous of the facts and law. On the facts and circumstances of the case he ought to have accepted the returned income. 2. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is not according to law and facts of the circumstances. That due to certain unavoidable circumstances the Assessee-company was not in a position to produce the evidence in support of ground of appeal filed.

3. That the ld. A.A has erred in initiating penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act being contrary to the facts and law.

4. That the ld. A.A is not justified in disallowing ESI, PF, TDS payable and other expenses on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in not allowing any other opportunity to the appellant to produce necessary evidence. 6. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. It is seen from the record that multiple opportunities have been given to the assessee therefore, we are constraint to proceed ex-parte.

4.

The assessment order was perused and it was found that certain additions were made on account of disallowance. The returned income of Rs.14,15,736/- was accordingly assessed at Rs.4,25,90,410/-.

5.

Against the aforesaid assessment passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief to the assessee owing to the fact that the assessee was totally non- cooperative despite several opportunities. In the absence of any rebuttal to the observations made by the Assessing Officer against the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) did not see any reason to interfere with the findings given in the assessment order. The CIT(A) thus passed ex-parte order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer.

6.

Before the Tribunal as well, the assessee has remained indolent and nonchalant. No material was placed to support the grievances raised in the appeal despite six opportunities.

7.

It is thus noted that in the present case right from the first appellate stage, the assessee has showed inexplicable indifference to the appeals filed both before the CIT(A) as well Tribunal. Number of opportunities were given by the CIT(A) as well as by the ITAT. The assessee did not care to file any reply. In absence of any rebuttal, the CIT(A) proceeded further with the appeal ex- parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by confirming the additions / disallowances under challenge. On going through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that in the absence of any explanation by the assessee on the issues involved, the CIT(A) was justified in confirming such additions / disallowance. The assessee has continued its supine indifference before the Tribunal. We thus find no mitigating circumstances in the present case to interfere with the order of the lower authorities. Hence, we decline to interfere.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/03/2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →