What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and without any contrary evidence, declined to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s decision to reject additional evidence and sustain the disallowance was upheld.

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and also did not present evidence to support its claim of capital expenditure. The CIT(A) rejected the claim for lack of evidence and sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for capital expenditure due to non-submission of supporting bills and rejecting additional evidence.

Peartree Enterprises P.Ltd vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hearing: 05.05.2022

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 03.04.2017 concerning AY 2012-13.

When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. It is seen from the appeal records that several opportunities have been given to the assessee to defend its case but without any avail. Accordingly, we are constraint to proceed exparte in the absence of the assessee.

On perusal of the first appellate order, it is observed that the assessee has failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the matter was proceeded exparte.

The issue involves addition of Rs.77,44,661/- to the returned income as disallowance of capital expenditure.

It is seen that the CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee by following reasons :-

“I have considered the issue of additional evidence as well as the report of the Assessing Officer and I agree with the Assessing Officer that the appellant was given, enough opportunities to use the evidence before him. The appellant has not been able to establish that it was prevented from sufficient cause to produce these bills before the Assessing Officer. The appellant cannot be allowed to choose the forum at which it wants to get its assessment done. The appellant cannot, without any plausible reason, by pass the Assessing Officer and expect the appellate authority to do the spade work in the limited time. Such practice has to be nipped in the bud. Consequently, the petition of the appellant under Rule 46A for consideration of additional evidence is rejected. Since the appellant have not submitted the bills of machine, repairs and maintenance before the Assessing Officer, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer. Consequently the disallowance of Rs.73,44,661/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head machinery running maintenance is sustained.’’

The CIT(A) appears to have addressed the factual matrix on the basis of material available on record. In absence of any contrary demonstration to the process of reasoning adopted by the CIT(A) and the in the absence of any documentary evidences made available before us to corroborate the claim of the assessee, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed exparte.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2022

PEARTREE ENTERPRISES P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments