Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Blue Bell Promoters P. Ltd., challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and an addition of Rs. 6,95,50,500/- under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits in its bank account for AY 2011-12. Despite multiple notices and rescheduling attempts, the assessee did not appear before the tribunal, which proceeded with the assistance of the DR and documents on record. The assessee's contentions included challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and the merits of the Section 68 addition.
Held
The tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeal. It found no material presented by the assessee to support its challenge to the validity of the reassessment proceedings (grounds 4 & 5) or to controvert the addition of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 (grounds 6 & 7). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was affirmed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid, considering the nature of reasons recorded. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,95,50,500/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 was justified on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
(A.Y.2011-12) Blue Bell Promoters P. Ltd., 70, Jaora Compound, Opp. M.Y Hospital, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant Behind Pooja Dairy, Indore, MP 452001 PAN: AADCB-1988-Q बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Circle 5(1), New Delhi अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 06/11/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 08/11/2024 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 12.09.2019, for assessment year 2011-12.
This appeal was filed by the assessee in 2019, notice of hearing of appeal was duly served on the assessee through RPAD. A perusal of file shows, that despite service of notice none appeared to represent the assessee on any of the dates fixed for hearing. The AR of the assessee filed application for transfer of appeal from (AY 2011-12) Delhi Benches to Indore Benches on 05.12.2023. The said request for transfer of appeal to Indore Benches was rejected on 19/01/2024 inter alia in the absence of NOC from the Department. Fresh notice for hearing of appeal was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2024 for 04.06.2024. An application for rescheduling the date of hearing of appeal was received from the AR of the assessee on 30.06.2024. On 04.06.2024 none appeared to represent the assessee. On 07.06.2024 the assessee’s request for rescheduling of appeal was rejected by the Bench as the appeal was already listed for hearing on 12.08.2024. On 12.08.2024 again none appeared to represent the assessee. A fresh notice was issued to the assessee by RPAD for today. Again no one is present to represent the assessee. Its seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. This being an old appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. DR and on the basis of documents available on record.
The assessee in appeal has raised multiple grounds inter alia challenging reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and addition of Rs.6,59,50,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit.
Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, representing the department vehemently defending the assessment order and the order of CIT(A), prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee/appellant.
We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in ground of appeal no. 4 & 5 has challenged validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reasons recorded for reopening do not show that these are 'reasons to believe' of the AO (AY 2011-12) but there are 'reasons to suspect'. However, to substantiate the said contention no material is placed on record by the assessee. Hence, in the absence of any contrary material, we don't see any reason to take a contrary view. Thus, ground of appeal
no. 4 & 5 are dismissed.
6. The assessee in ground of appeal no. 6 & 7 has challenged the addition u/s. 68 of the Act on merits. The AO in the assessment order has made addition of Rs. 6,95,50,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The said addition is made on account of unexplained credits in the bank account of the assessee. The CIT(A) has upheld the findings of the AO, no material is available before us to controvert the findings of the authorities below. Thus, in the absence of any material to rebut the findings of the AO/CIT(A), we find no merits in ground no. 6 and 7 of appeal, hence dismissed.
7. Ground no. 8 to 10 are argumentative and are in support of ground no. 6 and 7. The ground of appeal no 1 to 3 are general, hence require no separate adjudication.