Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 28.01.2020 29.01.2020 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-IV, New Delhi dated 25.01.2010 for Assessment Year 2001-02.
In this appeal, assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment as well as addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in a sum of Rs. 2.63 crores.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed a return of income declaring Nil income. Subsequently, information was received from Investigation Wing that assessee company had accepted accommodation entries from the persons who have no creditworthiness
Adventure Designs (P) Ltd. vs. ITO/ I.T.A.No.1617/Del/2010/A.Y.2001-02 Page 2 of 4 and are providing entries to the parties. The case was reopened. The AO after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering non cooperative attitude to the assessee made addition of Rs. 2.63 crores u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee. The assessment order was passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 23.12.2008. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal in which is decided vide order dated 11.05.2012 and matter was restored to the file of AO to consider the issue afresh. The record revealed that Revenue has preferred appeal against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal before Delhi High Court in ITA No. 157/2013 and the Hon’ble High Court has remitted the matter to the file of Tribunal for passing the order afresh in accordance with law vide judgment dated 03.04.2013. Accordingly, the present appeal was re-fixed for hearing on merits.
The record further revealed that in this case considering the submission of the parties remand report from the AO was called for. The Revenue has placed on record the remand report of the AO. The Tribunal has also directed the assessee to produce the Jai Prakash for recording his statement. The appeal was adjourned for 28.01.2020.
Ld. Counsel for assessee Shri Rajiv Jain, CA appeared on the date of hearing on behalf of the assessee and submitted that the name of the assessee has been struck off from the register of companies and that the last Directors of the assessee company are not aggrieved against the Adventure Designs (P) Ltd. vs. ITO/ I.T.A.No.1617/Del/2010/A.Y.2001-02 Page 3 of 4 impugned order. He has also submitted that since name of the assessee has been struck off, therefore, Form No. 36 shall have to be revised by the assessee which assessee has not able to do it. He has, therefore, submitted that assessee is not in a position to prosecute the present appeal.
Ld. DR in view of the submission of Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that appeal of the assessee has no merit, the same may be dismissed.
We have considered the facts of the case and material on record in the light of submission of the Ld. Representatives of both the parties.
Since, in this case, the Hon’ble High Court has restored the matter in issue to the file of the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law, therefore, it was the duty of the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal. However, Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal that assessee is not aggrieved against the impugned order and that names of the assessee have been struck off from the register of the companies. In this view of the matter, he has submitted that assessee is unable to prosecute the appeal.
These facts clearly show that assessee is not in a position to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal. It also shows that assessee has no grievance against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). In absence of any material in favour of the assessee and statement of Ld. Counsel for assessee made during the course of hearing, we do not Adventure Designs (P) Ltd. vs. ITO/ I.T.A.No.1617/Del/2010/A.Y.2001-02 Page 4 of 4 find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court.