BHAGWAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 47(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6567/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 October 2022AY 2011-124 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 upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the purchases. The appeal was dismissed ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the ITAT despite multiple notices. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information of accommodation entries for bogus purchases. The addition of Rs. 1,78,106 as unexplained income was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1,78,106 as unexplained income for bogus purchases is justified when the assessee failed to provide evidence. Whether the assessment order is bad-in-law and against natural justice due to non-compliance by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.07.2022Pronounced: 21.10.2022

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 12.06.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

On perusal of record, it is observed that, though, the appeal was fixed earlier for hearing on seven occasions, the assessee never appeared inspite of issuance of multiple notices of hearing. These facts reveal complete lack of interest and negligence of the assessee in pursuing the present appeal. Since, adequate opportunities of representation have already been granted to the assessee, which he has failed to avail, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material on record. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by A.O. is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in not holding so.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax erred in not holding so.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer making an addition of Rs.1,78,106 u/s 69A as unexplained income.

4.

Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. Based on information received that assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry by way of bogus purchase bills of Rs.1,78,106, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not appear in course of assessment proceedings to substantiate that purchases worth Rs.1,68,106 are genuine, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment by adding back the amount of Rs.1,78,106. The addition so made was sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

I have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.

6.

Undisputedly, before the Assessing Officer, assessee did not appear and comply with the queries raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the disputes purchases of Rs.1,78,106. Thus, in absence of any supporting evidence being furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the purchases as bogus and added to assessee’s income.

7.

On perusal of impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it appears that no cogent evidence was furnished by the assessee to prove the purchases. The position remains identical before me as well. Thus, in absence of any evidence furnished by the assessee to prove the purchases, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, I uphold the addition. Grounds are dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →