Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
(A.Y.2009-10) Real Electricals P Ltd., 9079, Gali Zamir Wali, Nawab Ganj, Pul Bangash, Delhi 110006 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AABCR-6833-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3) ..... �ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR.DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा क� ि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.
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.
(A.Y.2009-10) 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.
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