Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.6625/Del./2013 Assessment Year 2006-07 M/s. Triveni Ferrous The DCIT Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 22 [vs. House No.426/2, R-7, Near New Delhi MCD School, M.G. Road, Ghitorni – 110 030 PAN : AACCT 3615 R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, dated 17.10.2013, relating to the A.Y. 2006-07.
The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :
2.1. The assessee is a company. AO has noted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Triveni Group including the assessee on 28.09.2010. Thereafter, notice u/s 153A was issued on 07.02.2012 and in response to which assessee stated that the return filed by it on 08.12.2006 declaring loss of Rs.44,71,113/- u/s 139(1) of the Act with a request that this return consider to be return in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act. Thereafter, the case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2013 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,80,49,390/- inter alia by making the addition of Rs.2,24,67,752/- on account of cash receipt out of books.
2.2. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 17.10.2013 in Appeal No.45/13-17/CIT(A)-III granted partial relief to the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :
“1. That the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer U/S.153A of the Income-tax Act of making assessment, although, in any of the business premises of the assessee, no search ever took-place on the assessee u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act.
2. That the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that search is valid u/s.132 if assessee’s name appear in the search warrant, although, none of the business premises of the assessee is visited by the search team, is bad in law and in violation of provisions of section 132/153 of the I.T. Act.
3. That the order of the CIT(A) confirming the assessment U/S.153A is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
4. That the CIT(A) ought to have held that initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A/143(3) as well as framing of assessment under these sections was illegal, bad in law and void-ab-initio.
5. That without prejudice, the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the sum of Rs. 1,45,59,250/- as undisclosed income of the assessee, is bad in law on the facts of the assessee’s case.
6. That the learned CIT(A) has erroneously picked up the alleged peak credit while confirming the addition from the un- reconciled entries in the cash book, which in any case, was a negative balance and could not have added as undisclosed income.
That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even for calculating peak credit, all the entries appearing in the documents found during search should have been considered while determining the quantum of alleged undisclosed income, if any.
8. That the order passed by the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,59,250/- is bad in law and on facts of the assessee’s case.
That each ground is independent of and without prejudice to the other grounds raised herein.” ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The case file reveals that assessee has filed appeal in 2013 and the appeal was listed for hearing on 07.09.2015, 02.12.2015, 09.03.2016, 07.06.2016, 13.09.2016, 17.07.2017, 04.05.2017, 22.08.2017, 23.08.2017, 29.11.2017, 07.03.2018, 11.06.2018, 03.10.2018, 20.03.2019, 06.06.2019, 20.08.2019, 12.09.2019, 31.10.2019, 23.12.2019, 24.02.2020, 22.06.2020, 16.11.2020, 15.02.2021, 03.05.2021, 12.07.2021, 28.09.2021, 13.12.2021, 08.02.2022, 02.05.2022, 28.07.2022 but there was neither any appearance on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal nor any application was filed seeking adjournment despite notices being issued through RPAD. The notice for hearing on 28.07.2022 was issued through RPAD but the same was returned undelivered by postal authorities with the remarks that “company left” at the given address. Assessee has not filed any document informing the change of address. Preferring an appeal does not mean merely formally filing an appeal but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal. Further when an appeal is filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, it is expected that assessee shall put forth documentary evidences to support its claim. The fact that the assessee has not appeared before the Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee shows the negligent approach of the assessee and it shows that assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by it. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of the assessee in helping to decide the appeal, we don’t find any reason to keep the matter pending before us. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R.
The brief facts of the case are that AO noted cashbook of the assessee from 17.12.2005 to 17.01.2006 was seized during the course of search and it showed total receipts of Rs.11,37,34,548/-, assessee was asked to furnish explanation of seized document. AO noted that assessee filed reconciliation statement reconciling the receipts to the extent of Rs.9,12,66,796/- and for the differential amount of Rs.2,24,67,752/- assessee did not file any explanation. AO therefore treated Rs.2,24,67,752/- to be cash receipts out of the books of accounts and made its additions as income.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.1,45,59,250/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before Tribunal.
Before us, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities.
7. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and after analysing the details furnished granted relief to the extent of Rs.79,08,502/- and confirmed addition of Rs.1,45,59,250/-. The appeal being of assessee, it is its duty to lead evidence in support of its claim. Before us, assessee has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2022.