MI WEBPRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4711/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 January 2020AY 2014-153 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 noted the assessee's consistent non-cooperation before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Considering the assessee's conduct, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that no lenient view could be taken.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple occasions, despite notices being sent. The Revenue's representative argued that the assessee was non-cooperative before the lower authorities as well.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to be heard, and if the proceedings under Section 143(2) and 144 were valid given the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-37, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)J is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case,, the learned CIT(A) and the learned AO) has erred, both on facts and in Saw, failing to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A] has erred in failing to understand that the notice u/s 143(2) and the proceedings u/s 144 are bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned C1T(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the addition of an amount of Rs 44,33,105/-.”

2.

The assessee has filed this appeal on 23.05.2019. Registry issued RPAD to the assessee for 25.09.2019. In response to the same, assessee nor its authorized representative appeared nor filed any application for adjournment. The Bench adjourned the matter for 07.01.2020 directed the Registry to issue RPAD notice to the assessee on the address given by the assessee in Form No. 36. Again on 07.01.2020, assessee nor its authorized representative appear nor filed any application for adjournment. Hence, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee on the address given by the assessee in Form no. 36, therefore, I am deciding the appeal ex parte assessee, after hearing the learned DR.

3.

The learned DR stated that learned First Appellate Authority has given various opportunities to prosecute the matter in dispute, but the assessee did not appear before the learned First Appellate Authority as well as before the Tribunal. Therefore, no lenient view may be taken in favour of the assessee by setting aside the issues in dispute. He requested that appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed.

4.

I have heard the learned DR and perused the order passed by the Revenue authorities and I am of the view that the assessee remain non cooperative before the Assessing Officer because assessee did not appear before the AO twelve times which the AO has reproduced in para no. 1 of the assessment order. Finally the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.12.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed Appeal before the learned First Appellate Authority who has also issued various notices of hearing to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No. 35 by Speed Post and also through ITBA which the learned First Appellate Authority has mentioned in para nos. 4 and 5 of his impugned order and finally dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

I have gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned First Appellate Authority and keeping in view the conduct of the assessee of the assessee, I agree with the contention raised by the learned DR that no lenient view may be taken in favour of the assessee, keeping in view the conduct of the assessee before the authorities below. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 07/01/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →