Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
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.
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 Ld. CIT was not justified in disposing of Appeal by not giving any relief. 3. That due to certain unavoidable circumstances the Assessee
Company was not in a position to file the necessary submission in support of Ground of Appeal
4. The learned assessing officer is not justified in disallowing the interest on borrowed capital. The Assessee has sufficient reason to advances the money to their associates concerns.
5. The Ld. Assessing officer is not justified in disallowance of Service Tax, TDS payable and other payable expenses u/s 43-B. 6 The ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowance of certain expenses. The Assessee has sufficient evidence to the produce for said claims.
7. Any other ground or grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing.”
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.
The assessment order was perused and it was found that certain additions were made on account of disallowance towards advances, interest expenses, administrative and selling expenses and so on. The returned income of Rs.1,14,79,134/- was accordingly assessed at Rs.3,28,73,113/-.
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.
Before the Tribunal as well, the assessee has remained indolent and nonchalant. None appeared and no material was placed to support the grievances raised in the appeal despite six opportunities.
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 by it 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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/03/2023.