SMT. KIRAN KAMRA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4271/DEL/2014Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 August 2019AY 2011-123 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 rejected the assessee's adjournment application and decided to pass an ex-parte order. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's order to be cryptic, lacking details about the investment dates for section 54EC deduction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT passed under section 263. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, despite multiple adjournments. The Revenue argued that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54EC as REC bonds were purchased beyond the six-month period from the asset transfer date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT was justified in revising the assessment order under section 263 due to the assessee's ineligibility for section 54EC deduction. Whether the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 54EC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, & SHRI T.S. KAPOOR,

For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra CIT-DR
Hearing: 06/08/2019Pronounced: 07/08/2019

PER T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT-VII, dated 15/07/2014 passed u/s 263 of the Act. None was present on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for adjournment was placed on record where the Ld. Counsel had requested for short adjournment. From the record, it was observed that the assessee through his counsel had moved an application dated 13/10/2015 for earlier fixation of the appeal. We also observed that the assessee has been taking adjournments and last adjournment was obtained on 13/03/2019 and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 27/06/2019, on which date bench did not function and therefore the appeal was fixed for hearing today i.e. 06/08/2019.

Today also, the Authorized Representative has filed a request for short adjournment wherein he has submitted that they were in the process of returning the file back to the briefing counsel, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the adjournment application of the assessee was rejected and we decided to pass the order ex-parte qua the assessee and Ld. DR was directed to proceed with his arguments.

2.

The Ld. DR invited out attention to para 2 to 5 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, he has held that assessee had purchased REC bonds beyond the period of six months from the date of transfer of assets and therefore the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 54EC of the Act and the Assessing Officer had ignored in his order and therefore it was prayed that the order passed by the Ld. CIT should be upheld.

3.

Since, none was present on behalf of the assessee and no arguments were advanced against passing of order u/s 263 of the Act and moreover, the Assessing Officer has passed very cryptic order where he has not even mentioned the dates of investment in REC bonds u/s 54EC of the Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order of the Ld. CIT is sustained and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

4.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2019.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →