Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-15, Delhi dated 08.07.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law not giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant despite the fact that an adjournment of hearing has been moved.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the initiation of the assessment proceedings and the assessment order are bad on facts and in law and liable to be quashed as the statutory conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been complied with.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been initiated on the basis of the reasons which are vague and has been recorded without application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer.
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act was not served on him and therefore the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment has been framed without without affording opportunity to the appellant as no efforts has been made to serve the notice u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act on the assessee. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the grounds of appeal
and arguments of the assessee and confirming the addition made by the Assessing Authority.
8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds stated herein above, either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
2. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that since 19.01.2021, no one is attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Notices sent through speed post have been served duly to the assessee as there is acknowledgement available on record. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided after considering the material available on record.
3. The assessee has raised various grounds against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and service of notice u/s 148 of the Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the AO has noticed that tax Evasion Petition (“TEP”) was received that also contained a copy of First Information Report (“FIR”) lodged by the assessee on 02.09.2011 in Police Station, Sector-20, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. As per FIR and TEP, the assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of immovable property and paid Rs.20,00,000/- in cash to Shri Dinesh Trehan. It was observed that the assessee had not filed his Income Tax Return (“ITR”) for Assessment Year 2011- 12 therefore, the assessment was re-opened after recording the reasons u/s 147 of the Act. A notice u/148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2018 as per Assessing Officer. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and thereafter, other notices were issued to the assessee. However, in response to the statutory notices, no one attended the proceedings therefore, the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs.20,00,000/- and assessed the income at Rs.20,00,000/-.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A), there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the addition was confirmed.
Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the assessee has been throughout negligent as in this case, assessment has been framed u/s 144 of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) for want of prosecution. He strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard the contention of Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessment was re-opened on the basis of information received by the AO regarding the transaction of immovable property and payments of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash by the assessee. The assessee has assailed the re-opening of the assessment on various grounds for not providing the adequate opportunity to the assessee, the assessment was re-opened without application of mind and none service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In support of these grounds, the assessee has not furnished any material to substantiate its claim. However, from the record, it is seen that the authorities below had given adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee has been negligent throughout and did not attend the proceedings. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of the authorities below. Even before this Tribunal, despite various opportunities were given to the assessee, the assessee choose not to appear and attend the hearing. Under these facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly in the absence of the supporting evidences, the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th May, 2022.