POINTBLACK TRACON PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT(OSD) WARD 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 839/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 December 2023AY 2012-134 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 found no merit in the appeal due to the assessee's failure to provide any documentation or respond to the appellate proceedings. The findings of the CIT(Appeals) were concurred with.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal despite a prior adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) are sustainable in the absence of any evidence or response from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax & 839/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 Pointblack Tracon Pvt. Limited (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 21.06.2023 passed in A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,03,45,000/- and Rs.60,00,000/- in both the years respectively.

3.

In response to the notice of hearing, one staff member duly authorized, namely Shri S. Arora, has appeared before the Tribunal and filed a letter on the Letter Head- POINTBLACK TRACON PVT. LTD. CIN:U51109DL1995PTC188033.

1.

He sought an adjournment. On his request, hearing was adjourned to 11th December, 2023. But today inspite of adjournment, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee.

4.

With the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. We find that ld. CIT(Appeals) has recorded the following finding in A.Y. 2011-12:- “5.1. In Ground No. 1, the appellant has disputed addition of Rs.1,03,45,000/- on the section 68. It appears that the AO has duly considered the submissions made during the assessment proceedings and also carried out enquiries. In short, the addition has been made after due application of mind. In the absence of any response by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, the AO’s decision has to be confirmed”. & 839/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 Pointblack Tracon Pvt. Limited 5. Similar finding is being recorded in the next year. It is pertinent to observe that even before the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee though put appearance but failed to submit complete details. In the absence of any paper book and any other material placed either before the ld. CIRT(Appeals) or before the Tribunal, it is very difficult to record any finding of fact on these issues. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal and concur with the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals).

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/12/2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →