NIKHIL LUTHRA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 674/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2019AY 2015-163 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 upheld the additions sustained by the CIT(A) regarding mismatch in 26AS and bogus sundry creditors. The ground challenging the validity of the assessment due to an unsigned notice was dismissed as it was not raised before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in job work and embroidery, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer made several additions, including for mismatch in 26AS, interest on TDS, sundry creditors, and cessation of liability. The CIT(A) granted partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) are justified. Whether the ground regarding the validity of the assessment can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. R. K. PANDA

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04/07/2019Pronounced: 09/07/2019

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2018 of the CIT(A), Faridabad relating to A. Y. 2015-16.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Notice issued by the registry through RPAD was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks “Left”. The assessee has not taken any steps to intimate the changed address, if any. Therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

The assessee in the various grounds of appeal

has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in upholding the assessment and thereby sustaining the various additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in job work and embroidery work on clothes in the name & Style of M/s. Antex Fashion, DLF Indl. area, Faridabad. He filed his return of income on 28.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.16,87,510/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143 (3) on 17.102.107 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.34,18,640/- wherein he made addition of Rs.2,61,745/- on account of mismatch in the 26 AS, Rs.53,862/- on account of interest on TDS, Rs.6,649/- on account of non submission of details relating reconciliation in the account of sundry creditors of Rs.11,137/- on account of cessation of liability u/s. 41 (1) and Rs.13,97,735/- on account of bogus sundry creditors.

5. Since the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the CIT(A) regarding non service of notice u/s. 143 (2), he upheld the validity of the assessment order. So far as merit of the additions are concerned the Ld. CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee for which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. I find out of the various additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition of Rs.2,61,765/- on account of mismatch in the 26 AS and Rs.13,97,735/- on account of bogus sundry creditors and has Page | 2 deleted the various other additions. There is nothing on record to take a contrary view that the view taken by the CIT(A) while sustaining the additions so made. So far as the ground relating to validity of assessment on account of unsigned notice issued u/s.143 (2) is concerned I find the assessee in form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT (A) has not taken any such ground, therefore, the ground relating to non adjudication raised by the assessee in respect of assessment of jurisdiction is devoid of merit and therefore, the same is dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on .07.2019.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →