ORISSA EDUCATION TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 189/CTK/2020Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 January 2023AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to counter the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal was decided on merits due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance and lack of documentation.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust appealed against the disallowance of a significant amount and an addition related to building valuation. The assessee failed to appear before the tribunal on multiple occasions and did not provide any supporting documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowances and additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) are sustainable in the absence of evidence from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Hearing: 24/01Pronounced: 24/01

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) -1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, dated 19.2.2019 in Appeal No. in Appeal No.0758/17-18 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. Shri M.K.Gautam, ld CIT DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. The appeal has be None represented on behalf of the assessee. The appeal has be None represented on behalf of the assessee. The appeal has been filed by the assessee on the assessee on 5.10.2020. The appeal has been posted for hear The appeal has been posted for hearing on multiple occasions of nearly 9 times being 8.3.2021, 10.2.2022, multiple occasions of nearly 9 times being 8.3.2021, 10.2.2022, multiple occasions of nearly 9 times being 8.3.2021, 10.2.2022,

P a g e 1 | 4 22.3.2022,5.5.2022,13.6.2022, 26.7.2022, 21.8.2022, 28.11.2022 and again today. Other than seeking adjournment or not being present, there is no attempt by the assessee to have its appeal disposed off. Consequently, we are left with no other option but to dispose the appeal of the assessee on merits.

3.

The facts in the present appeal shows that the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.2,80,93,836/- made by the AO, which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) The assessee has also challenged the addition of Rs.2,90,00,000/- representing the difference in the value of the building. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that in para 4.2 in respect of addition of Rs.77,86,617/-, the ld CIT(A) has called for remand report and has considered the same along with the rejoinder filed by the assessee. It is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the appellant had been unable to prove anything to the contrary to that what could be produced before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment and remand proceedings.

4.

Coming to the disallowance of Rs.2,80,93,836/-, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) in para 5.2 of his order has categorically given a finding that the appellant could not controvert the facts during the remand proceedings and also before the ld CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings in respect of the findings of the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings.

P a g e 2 | 4

5.

Coming to the issue of addition representing Rs.2,90,00,000/-, a perusal of para 6.2 of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the appellant was unable to file the report showing the valuation in respect of the construction of the building. It is also noticed that the ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the appellant could not produce any evidence and explanation to refute and negate the findings of the Assessing Officer in respect of the said addition. Thus, clearly, the ld CIT (A) has gone into the facts of each of the addition and it is only on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to produce any evidence to negate the findings of the Assessing Officer that the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.

6.

Before the Tribunal also, admittedly, the assessee has not filed any documents or evidence which could assist the Tribunal to draw a conclusion contrary to that drawn by the ld CIT(A). This being so, we are of the view that the order of the ld CIT(A) do not call for any interference and consequently, same stands upheld.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →