INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TELECOM TECHNOLOGY,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2966/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.12.2025Pronounced: 03.12.2025

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.

2.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →