M/S ANGAD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4022/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 April 2019AY 2005-063 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they did not appear despite being notified. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss. The AO made an addition for unexplained cash credit, resulting in taxable income and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The assessee did not respond to notices or appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution by the assessee. The penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Hearing: 23.04.2019Pronounced: 23.04.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4022/Del./2016 Assessment Year 2005-2006 M/s. Angad Developers The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., B-1/4, Nehru Ward – 2 (4), vs Market, Opp. LSR College, Zamrudpur, New Delhi New Delhi. PIN 110048. PAN AADCA8901E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, Dated 09th May, 2016, for the A.Y. 2005-2006, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The A.O. noted in the penalty Order that assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.9,69,924/-. The 2 ITA.No.4022/Del./2016 M/s. Angad Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. A.O. made addition of Rs.10 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit. Thus, the total taxable income was computed at Rs.30,076/- against the returned loss, on which, penalty was initiated at the penalty stage. Notices were issued to the assessee, but, none of them have been responded to by the assessee. The A.O. accordingly levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing through registered post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted.

4.

In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and 3 ITA.No.4022/Del./2016 M/s. Angad Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

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 →