Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2 for assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal contested the non-admission of a revised income computation chart, the upholding of additions for 'Prior Period Expenses', and the non-allowance of 'Prior Period Income'.
Held
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend the proceedings despite multiple opportunities and failed to remove a defect regarding the appeal fee. Concluding that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, the tribunal dismissed it as defective.
Key Issues
Non-admission of revised computation of income; upholding of additions for prior period expenses; non-allowance of prior period income; and non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee leading to dismissal due to defects.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow dated 13.08.2020 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
“1. (1) The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-II, Lko. erred on facts and in not admitting the ‘Revised Computation Chart’ submitted before Ld. A. O. in assessment proceeding showing income at Rs. 1,35,60,775/- instead of income shown in original return filed at Rs. 1,40,90,850/- as time limit for filing for Revised Return was expired, even this issue is covered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court. (2) The Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs. 2,49,210/- being ‘Prior Period Expenses’ as shown in compiled Profit and Loss Account, without appreciating that these expenses were determined / crystallized during the year only after due verification by Authorized Page 2 of 3 Officer and allowable during the year as per mercantile system of accounting. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE (3) The Ld. CLT. (A) while upholding addition of Rs. 2,49,210/- as ‘Prior Period Expenses’ had not allowed deduction for ‘Prior Period Income’ Rs. 1,00,334/- as the same is required to be deducted and net addition of Rs. 1,48,876/- ( Rs. 2,49,210.00 ~ Rs. 1,00,334.00) can only be upheld. (4) The additions upheld are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and Principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by him.”
It is seen from the records that no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Despite multiple opportunities have been given to the assessee but no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is also noticed that the Registry had issued a defect notice regarding appeal fee to be deposited in appropriate head. It is informed by the bench clerk that the aforesaid defect has not been removed by the assessee. Looking to the conduct of the assessee, it can be inferred that it is not interested to prosecute the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed being defective.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2025.