M/S. WHITEFIELDS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

(A) This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 18.11.2015 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, New Delhi [in short, “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

1) “The addition of Rs. 81,75,000/- on account of unexplained share application money made to the returned income by the Ld. Assessing Authority u/s 68 of the act is based on surmise and conjunctures and is arbitrary, against the facts and bad at law.

(Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.)

2) The addition of Rs. 1,87,20,000/- on account of increase in unsecured loan made to the returned income by the Ld. Assessing Authority u/s 68 of the act is based on surmise and conjunctures and is arbitrary, against the facts and bad at law. 3) The disallowance of Rs. 1,25,100/- made by the Ld. Assessing Authority on account of payment of Bonus contending such sum was otherwise payable as profits or dividends is arbitrary, against the facts and bad at law. 4) The disallowance of Rs. 90,49,493/- made by the Ld. Assessing Authority on account of expenses claimed by the assessee under the various heads is based on surmise and conjunctures and is arbitrary, against the facts and bad at law. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute or withdraw any of the Grounds of the Appeal on or before the date of disposal of the appeal. 6) The Order is against the law and facts of the case.”

(B) This appeal was filed on 18/02/2016; whereas impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee on 07/12/2015. Thus, this appeal is barred by limitation having regard to time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. Vide letter dated 16/02/2016 of M/s. Nath Ahuja & Co., Chartered Accountants and affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Arora, Chartered Accountant, the delay in filing of the appeal has been sought on the ground that aforesaid Mr. Sanjeev Arora (to whom task for preparing and submission of appeal was entrusted) was out of town due to some personal problems/reasons. However, on perusal of records, we find that there is no authorization by assessee, appointing either aforesaid M/s. Nath Ahuja & Co. or aforesaid Mr. Sanjay Arora to act or state on behalf of the (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) assessee for the purposes of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to take cognizance of the aforesaid letter of M/s. Nath Ahuja & Co. and affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Arora. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine, being barred by limitation having regard to provisions of S. 253(3) of I.T.Act. (C) However, we have considered the disputed issues in this appeal, on merits too. The relevant portion of the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 is reproduced as under :-

(Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.)

(D) On merits, the relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 18/11/2015 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under :-

(Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.)

(E) At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Jagdish Singh, Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR”, for short). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the assessment order dated 27/12/2011 of Assessing Officer; under section 143(3)/144 of the I.T.Act and the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 18.11.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record ; we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (D of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 18.11.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by (Whitefields International (P.) Ltd.) the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR, and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 18.11.2015 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(F) In view of the foregoing; this appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation; and also on merits. Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assesee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

(G) In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/02/20.