M/S. JAY ENTERPRISE,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 595/RJT/2012Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 July 2018AY 2006-073 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 assessee's appeal as the assessee showed no inclination to prosecute its appeal and failed to provide any rebuttal to the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order upholding the AO's addition of Rs. 25,15,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to appear or file necessary documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained cash credit is justified and whether the assessee was deprived of an opportunity for cross-examination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RAJKOT” BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR

For Appellant: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr. DR

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 CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 15.10.2012 arising in the assessment order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2006- 07.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:-

ITA No. 595/Rjt/12 [M/s. Jay Enterpise vs. C IT(A)] A.Y. 2006-07 - 2 -

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. The appellant has been deprived of opportunity of cross examining the creditors/lenders. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in passing order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.25,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on the alleged ground of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law.”

3.

When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared. An Adjournment letter dated 17.07.2018 was however filed seeking time for preparation of paper book. It is seen from the case records that the matter was first listed on 11.03.2013 and thereafter the matter was listed for hearing on four occasions earlier to this hearing. The adjournment has been sought on behalf of the assessee on one pretext or the other. The assessee has filed the appeal in the month of October, 2012 whereas the matter has been dragged up to July 2018. The assessee has not shown any inclination to ensure hearing of the matter on the listed dated. The paper book has also not been filed. It is also seen from the record that even before the AO, the assessee has failed to comply with statutory notices and consequently, the AO was constraint to pass the best judgment assessment. In the given circumstances, we do not find any reasonable cause on the part of the assessee to entertain further request of adjournment. We are appalled by the hapless and negligent attitude of the assessee. The alarming show of non-chalance and flippant attitude of the assessee forces us to

ITA No. 595/Rjt/12 [M/s. Jay Enterpise vs. C IT(A)] A.Y. 2006-07 - 3 -

conclude that the assessee in not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, we left with no option but to decline the adjournment. Accordingly, we proceed for ex parte disposal of the appeal on merits.

4.

The Learned DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

5.

As noted above, several opportunities were given to the assessee to appear before the Tribunal to support its case without any avail. On merits, the issue involves addition on account of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.25,15,000/-. In the absence of any rebuttal to the order of the AO and CIT(A), we have no occasion to interfere therewith.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on multiple grounds as noted above.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/08/2018

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 03/08/2018 True Copy S. K. SINHA Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT, Rajkot

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →