Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012- 13.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:-
3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged as Real Estate developers. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.10,12,610/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on assessee. AO has noted that assessee was asked to explain about the various details called for by him but there was no compliance from the assessee. He therefore passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2015 determining the total income at Rs.4,08,92,762/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal at Page 4 of this order has noted that notices for hearing was issued on 19 occasions but on none of those dates, assessee had appeared or furnished any details. He therefore, vide order dated 30.01.2019 in Appeal No.19/17-18/CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:
1. “Because the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the Appellant appeal in arbitrary manner where in fact there was no deliberate non- compliance of Notice under Section 250 of the Act on the part of the Appellant.
2. Because the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not taking into consideration the circumstances under which the Appellant could not comply with the fixture notices during the appeal proceedings.
Because the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the ground of appeal of the Appellant that the enhancement of the income by disallowing the purchases of the Appellant is in contravention of the revenue recognition adopted by the Appellant and also prescribed by the ICAI for construction & development projects.
4. Because the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a Real Estate Developer and looking to the fact that the Project takes the longer period in the development & completion of the Project, hence the revenue is recognized on the basis of Percentage Completion of project on the basis of expenses incurred on the project over the years.
5. Because the Because the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- under section 40A(3) of I T Act made by the learned AO without considering the circumstances under which the payment to farmers was made in cash for the purchase of land. Moreover, the payment was duly authenticated from the bank withdrawal.
6. Because the Because the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.73,80,000/- under the head commission expenses without examining the details of the expenses submitted during the appeal proceedings.
7. Because the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.35,99,000/- under the head rent expenses without proper verification of the details submitted during the appeal proceedings.”
On the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there was any adjournment application. The case file further reveals that the matter was also listed earlier on 2nd June 2022 but there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee.
Considering the aforesaid facts, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee and after considering the submissions made by the Learned DR.
Before us, Learned DR pointed to the observations made by AO wherein he had called for the details but there was no compliance and therefore AO was constrained to pass order u/s 144 of the Act. Learned DR thereafter pointed to 19 occasions when CIT(A) had fixed the hearing but there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that on the present date of hearing also there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. He therefore submitted that the appeal be decided accordingly.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that AO had asked the assessee to furnish various details but no submissions were made by the assessee. AO therefore made additions aggregating to Rs.3,98,80,149/- in the order passed u/s 144 of the Act. Before CIT(A) also there has been no appearance on behalf of the assessee despite various opportunities for hearing given by the Learned CIT(A). Before us, also there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Further assessee has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of AO. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the ground of assessee are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2022