REAL ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एफ”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
डॉ मीठा लाल मीना, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आअसं.1703/िदʟी/2013(िन.व. 2009-10)
Real Electricals P Ltd.,
9079, Gali Zamir Wali, Nawab Ganj, Pul Bangash,
Delhi 110006
PAN: AABCR-6833-Q

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant

बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)
New Delhi

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR.DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
08/01/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
10/01/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 22.02.2013, for assessment year 2009-10. 2. A perusal of appeal file shows that appeal was first listed for hearing on 18.09.2014. Thereafter, appeal was repeatedly adjourned one pretext or the other. In the past three years, the appeal is list for hearing on 19 occasions.

2
Either, appeal was adjourned on the request of assessee’s representative or none appeared to represent the assessee on the date fixed for hearing. Repeated notices were sent to the assessee through RPAD as well. The notices sent on the address mentioned in Form No. 36 were received back un-served by the postal authorities with remarks left/door locked for long time. It seems that the assessee is not keen to pursue the appeal. The assessee has neither taken pains to revise
Form No. 36 with current/new address nor has assisted the Bench for disposal of appeal. The appeal is languishing in the Tribunal for more than a decade. Hence, this appeal is taken up for adjudication on the basis of material available on record and with the assistance of ld. DR.
3. The assessee in revised grounds of appeal filed on 26.10.2015 has assailed the order of CIT(A) on three counts:
(i) Confirming disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenditure
Rs.19,86,275/-;

(ii) Disallowance of interest Rs.5,53,213/-; and (iii) Confirming notional interest income on loans and advances Rs.9,30,964/-
4. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, representing the department vehemently defended findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) with regard to aforesaid additions. She prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing appeal of the assessee.
5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee/appellant has not placed on record any 3
material to controvert the findings of CIT(A). Ergo, in absence of any contrary material we have no other option but to uphold the impugned order.
5. In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 10th day of January,
2025. (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी / Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 10/01/2025

NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,

////

(Dy./Asstt.