Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
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