RAJESH PASSI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 876/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 December 2019AY 2012-1318 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 ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order with detailed reasons on merits. In the absence of any new material from the assessee to persuade a different view, the ITAT declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the appeal, making additions to income. The assessee did not appear for the ITAT hearing, while the Revenue was represented.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified based on the facts and evidence. Whether the CIT(A)'s order was passed in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

[A] This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 29.12.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the order passed by the Learned CIT (A) is not based on the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. That the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is against the principles of natural justice.

ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi.

3.

That on the facts & circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) was not justified in addition of Rs. 30,93,152/- on account of points mentioned in the assessment order.

4.

That the addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan made by the Learned CIT(A) is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts.

5.

That the addition of Rs. 11,93,152/- on account of Form 26 AS made by the Learned Assessing Officer is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts. In this point, third party confirmation received after the order passed by the CIT(A).

6.

That on the facts & circumstances of the case the Learned AO has erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C.

7.

That on the facts & circumstances of the case Learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

8.

That your appellant craves your leave to set aside or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of the appeal.”

[B] Vide Assessment Order dated 30.03.2015 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the I.T. Act”). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2015 is reproduced as under:-

ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi.

ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. [C] The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 29.12.2016, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi.

”

[D] This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Surender Pal, the learned 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 order dated 30.03.2015 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the ITA No.- 876/Del/2012 Shri Rajesh Passi. order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), 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 [C] 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 29.12.2016 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 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 29.12.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

[E] Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee 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.

[F] In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/12/2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →