CIT vs. ACA COMMERCE & INSURANCE AGENTS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the Tribunal's order, noting that the AO's ex-parte assessment was based on the assessee's lack of cooperation. The court also imposed costs on the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring a low income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made a substantial ex-parte addition after deeming the assessee's reply insufficient. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the assessee's application for additional evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO was justified, and if the CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for additional evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 270/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. . . . versus . . . ACA COMMERCE and INSURANCE AGENTS . PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 24.04.2012 . . . Having heard counsel for the appellant, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Costs of `25,000/- has been imposed on the respondent-assessee for the lapses on their part. . The assessee had filed a return declaring income of `1,00,858/- for the assessment year 2007-08. The notice dated 20.11.2009 does not show that the assessee had not appeared in the earlier proceedings. It is apparent that the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply and the documents/explanation furnished by the assessee. In response to the notice dated 20.11.2009, a reply was sent by registered post and was received by Assessing Officer on 5.12.2009. The Assessing Officer did not examine the said reply on the ground that it was not signed by the director of the respondent company but by the accountant. There is a dispute whether or not the assessee or its authorized representative had appeared before the Assessing Officer on 9.12.2009. Thereafter, ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed on 14.12.2009 making addition of more than `3,12,00,000/-. . 2. In the appeal before CIT (Appeals) the assessee had filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 but the same was rejected. CIT(Appeals) has mentioned that the Assessing Officer has stated in the remand report that if the additional evidence as filed by the assessee was taken into consideration, the Revenue had no case at all. . 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we do not think any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Of course, in case the assessee does not co-operate, it will be open to the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed. . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J . APRIL 24, 2012 . vld . . . $ 1 . . .
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026