Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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