PIYUSH INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to justify the entries or challenge the reopening.
What were the facts?
During a search operation, incriminating documents revealed the assessee received accommodation entries totaling Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition of this amount, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was valid and whether the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- under Section 68 was justified, given the lack of evidence from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA
ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, Dated 31.01.2017, for the A.Y. 2009-2010.
2 ITA.No.2152/Del./2017 Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad.
Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee- company filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.8,90,808/-. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) on February, 2011 at a loss of Rs.4,40,536/-. Later on, during the course of search operation certain incriminating documents such as unaccounted cash books and cheque books wherein there were details of entries provided by Shri S.K. Jain through his different Companies which were controlled by him were found and seized. It was found that assessee is also one of the beneficiary to have received accommodation entry in a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from 10 parties. The case was reopened under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The objections of the assessee were rejected against re-assessment order. Thereafter, assessee did not file any evidence or material to explain the genuineness of the entries received from the entry operator. The A.O, therefore, passed the ex-parte Order under section 143(3)/147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 31.03.2014 making addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/-.
3 ITA.No.2152/Del./2017 Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite giving several opportunities to the assessee by sending notices to the assessee, none appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of the assessee, confirmed the addition as well as reopening of the assessment and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The assessee has been notified the date of hearing for 11.11.2019. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, appeal was adjourned to 09.01.2020 and assessee was further notified the date of hearing for 09.01.2020. However, since the Bench did not function on that date, therefore, appeal was adjourned to 04.03.2020. The assessee was further notified the date of hearing through registered post at the correct address provided by the assessee. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee even on this date of hearing. The appeal is, therefore, decided in the absence f assessee.
We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below. The assessee did not 4 ITA.No.2152/Del./2017 Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad. produce any evidence before the authorities below to prove as to how the re-assessment is not valid and as to why the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on account of unaccounted share application money is not justified. The assessee did not appear before the authorities below. The non- appearance is continued even before the Tribunal. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the absence of any evidence or material on record, we do not find any infirmity in the Orders of the authorities below. We confirm the same and dismiss the appeal of assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
