GDA FINVEST & TRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 189/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 August 2021AY 2005-063 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 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, following established precedents, as the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal despite proper service attempts.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2005-06 was dismissed for want of prosecution as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notices sent to the provided address were returned as incomplete.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) is liable to be quashed due to lack of specific charge initiation and whether the penalty is sustainable solely on the basis of un-deleted additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SH.PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr DR
Hearing: 03.08.2021Pronounced: 03.08.2021

ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 12.10.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty order passed by the Id. A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be quashed because the Id. A.O. had not specified the "charge", at the time of initiating penalty.

2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable, simply because the assessee had failed to get the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- (made by the Id. A.O. on account of unexplained share capital) deleted. 3. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable, simply because the assessee had failed to get the disallowance of Rs.

14,382/- (made by the Ld. A.O. on account of deferred revenue expenses) deleted.

4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order dt. 28.12.2015 passed by the Id. A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.1,88,212/-.

5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal, without properly looking into the facts of the case of the assessee.”

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 furnished by the assessee at “GDA Finvest & Trade Pvt.Ltd., Delhi Rohtak road, Assam Timber Market, Swarna Park, Mundka, New Delhi”, is returned back with remark “Incomplete address”. The notice is returned back unserved. The assessee had not furnished correct and complete address. Before Ld.CIT(A), the same address was furnished and Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

However, before Ld. CIT(A), Sh. Archit Aggarwal, CA & Sh.Sunil Sharma without proper authorization, attended the proceedings.

3.

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

4.

We have heard the Ld. Sr. 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 03rd August, 2021.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →