UNITECH HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4270/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2021AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee appeared to be uninterested in prosecuting the appeal. Following precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite proper service of notice. The notice was returned unserved with the remark 'refused to take delivery'.

What were the issues?

The appeal raised issues regarding the charging of notional interest on share application money and the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A. The primary issue before the tribunal was the dismissal of the appeal due to non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR

Hearing: 28.07.2021Pronounced: 28.07.2021

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-10, New Delhi dated 30.03.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250(6) of the Act is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the order of the Learned Assessing Officer charging notional interest amounting to Rs.13,80,08,663/- on share application money advanced by the appellant to its subsidiary/joint venture/associate companies. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income i.e. Rs.289,315/-.

4. The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one another.”

2.

No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The notice of hearing was sent through speed post to the address provided by the assessee which is returned back with remark “refused to take delivery of the letter”. The notice is returned back unserved.

3.

Ld. CIT DR submitted that appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

4.

We have heard the Ld. CIT DR and perused the material available on record. In these facts and circumstances, it appeared that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notices therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). We hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

5.

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

Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 28th July, 2021.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →