SHASHI KUMAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1893/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2019AY 2013-144 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 had not filed grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A), but instead challenged the Assessing Officer's order. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as defective.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14. Despite multiple adjournments and a specific direction to serve notice by RPAD, the assessee failed to appear or represent the appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the defective nature of the appeal due to the absence of grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee also raised issues regarding additions made by the AO and charging of interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Hearing: 18.02.2019Pronounced: 05.04.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2013-14.

2.

These appeals were posted for hearing on several dates and none appeared on behalf of the assessee in any of the occasions when the appeal was posted for hearing on 29.05.2018, 30.07.2018, 27.08.2018, 06.09.2018, 07.09.2018, 29.10.2018, 29.11.2018, 09.01.2019 and Bench directed to serve notice by issue of RPAD. The notice was served to the assessee, however on 18.02.2019 in spite of service of notice, assessee did not choose to represent these appeals. Thus, I dispose off these appeals on hearing the Ld.DR.

3.

At the outset, on perusal of the appeals filed by the assessee, I find that the assessee has not filed grounds of appeal challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The grounds filed along with the appeal i.e. Form No.36 read as under: -

“Assessment Year 2011-12: -

1. 1. On the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the jcit (osd ) cc-2(4) is bad-in-law and required to be quashed as it is passed against the principal of natural justices.

2. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Assessing officer made addition in Total Income of Assessee Rs.624673 which is totally wrong 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law Ld. JCIT failed to appreciate that :- a) Addition is made during this year, based on 2 month document seized for the period 21.08.2010 to 23.10.2010 as per order, is totally wrong because documents received is related to assessee but what is written on that challan as rough working is not related to assessee business. b) Addition cannot be made on presumption basis.

4. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. Assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s. 234B & 234C of Income Tax Act 1961.

5. The Assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. Assessment Year 2013-14: -

1. On the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the JCIT (OSD) CC-2(4) is bad-in-law and required to be quashed as it is passed against the principal of natural justices.

3 & 1893/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2013-14) Shashi Kumar Singh 2. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Ld. JCIT (OSD) CC- 2(4) made addition in Total Income of Assesse Rs.857800 which is totally wrong 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law Ld. DCIT failed to appreciate that :- a) Addition is made during this year is based on 2 month document seized for the period 21.08.2010 to 23.10.2010 which is totally wrong because documents received is related to assessee but what is written on that challan as ruf working is not related to assessee business. b) Addition cannot be made on presumption basis.

4.

The Assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal

on or before the date of hearing.”

4. Assessee also filed statements of facts before the Tribunal stating as under:

“Assessment Year 2011-12: -

1. 1. Appellant is an Individual engaged in the business of Courier.

2. Appellant had e-filed return of Income declaring total income of Rs.1,91,185/- 3. Case of appellant because of search and accordingly assessment order is passed on 23/01/2018 at assessed income of Rs.7,83,760/-.

4. Further, the Assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s. 234B &234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. Thus, being aggrieved by the order of the Id. DCIT appellant preferred present appeal before your honour for the justice.

6. The appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed submissions with documentary evidence at the time of hearing of the case. Assessment Year 2013-14: - 1. Appellant is an individual engaged in the business of Courier.

2. Appellant had e-filed return of Income declaring total income of Rs.233548/-.

3. Case of appellant because of search and accordingly assessment order is passed on 23/01/2018 at assessed income of Rs.857800/-.

4. Further, the Assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s. 234B &234C of Income Tax Act 1961.

5. Thus, being aggrieved by the order of the Id. DCIT appellant preferred present appeal before your honour for the justice.

6. The appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed submissions with documentary evidence at the time of hearing of the case.”

4 & 1893/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2013-14) Shashi Kumar Singh 5. On a perusal of the grounds and statements of facts, I find that assessee has not challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) but however challenged the order of the Assessing Officer before this Tribunal. Since, there are no grounds of appeal challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by the assessee, I dismiss these appeals in limine as defective appeals.

6.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 05th April, 2019

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →