Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi for AY 2011-12. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing. The Assessing Officer treated cash receipts of Rs. 5,00,55,159/- as income due to the assessee's non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee made no compliance before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) despite opportunities. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the Assessing Officer's order. Since no details were provided to the Tribunal either, no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order without considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, and whether the assessee's lack of compliance justifies the addition of cash receipts as income.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. NFAC, Delhi dated 30.04.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12.
None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed with the assistance of the ld. DR. Therefore, the ld. DR was heard at length and the case records were carefully perused.
[A.Y 2011-12] Intt. Instt of Telecom Technology Vs. The .PCIT 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the specific grounds raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) were not considered by the ld. CIT(A) inspite of recording these grounds in the impugned order.
We have heard the ld. DR and have perused the relevant material on record. From a perusal of the record, we find that the assessee has made no compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). Failure to make any response before the Assessing Officer led the Assessing Officer to conclude the cash receipts of Rs. 5,00,55,159/- as income of the assessee.
We also find that there was no compliance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) despite several opportunities. No details of cash deposit were furnished before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s plea that the Assessing Officer has not verified the study data was also rejected by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee neither submitted the said data before the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), therefore, confirmed the Assessing Officer’s order.
As no details were filed before us also, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and decline to interfere with the same.
Order pronounced in open court on 03.12.2025.