AURO GOLD JEWELLERY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 228/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 March 2023AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the appeals as the assessee was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the NCLT. This dismissal was based on Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in gold jewellery business, challenged additions/disallowances and penalty orders for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals can proceed when the assessee is undergoing insolvency proceedings and the impact of such proceedings on the appeal's maintainability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Hearing: 08.03.2023Pronounced: 31.03.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

The above mentioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2009-10 and 2010-11.

2.

It is observed that there has been no representation on behalf of the assessee inspite of several opportunities given, hence, we hereby proceed to dispose of these appeals by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and on perusal of the materials available on record. order in these appeals.

4.

The assessee has challenged these appeals on the ground of reopening of the assessment, alleged bogus purchases and the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act along with various other grounds.

5.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of gold jewellery, bullion and diamonds in the name of M/s.

Auro Gold Jewellery P. Ltd. The assessee filed its return of income and the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act was passed and various additions/disallowance were made subsequent to the reopening of the assessment in the case of the assessee. The assessee had challenged the said order before the first appellate authority and subsequently before us challenging the additions/disallowances and penalty levied by the A.O.

6.

We have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue who had contended that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee on several occasion before the Tribunal. The ld. DR further stated that the assessee’s case was going through insolvency proceeding before the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai. There is nothing on record to controvert the said fact. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the said appeals have to be dismissed on the said ground as per section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. We hereby dismiss the said appeals with the liberty given to the assessee/Resolution Professional to restore the appeal as and when required.

pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2023

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 →