VIVITA INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2832/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 August 2018AY 2010-115 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 held that in the absence of any supporting evidence or appearance from the assessee at any stage, the disallowances and additions made by the AO cannot be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return of income, but failed to comply with statutory notices from the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner (Appeals). The AO completed the assessment to the best of his judgment, disallowing loss, depreciation, and sundry creditors due to lack of substantiation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed these additions ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowances and additions made by the AO are justified in the absence of any evidence or appearance by the assessee. Whether the assessee's failure to appear and provide substantiation warrants dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27/01/2016 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–24, Mumbai for the Assessment Year 2010–11. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee company filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 27/1/2016 declaring total income of `.8,34,561/–. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer, as evident from the assessment order, issued a number of statutory notices under section. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act calling upon the assessee to furnish various details in support of its claim made in the return of income. As observed by the Assessing Officer, in spite of service of statutory notices, there was no compliance from assessee’s side. Ultimately, vide letter dated 15/10/2012, the assessee without furnishing any information / detail called for simply requested the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment by accepting the return. Due to non–compliance of the queries made, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record. The Assessing Officer observed, the assessee has not substantiated the claim of loss of `.8,34,561/– hence, he disallowed the same. Further, he observed that the claim of depreciation amounting to `.2,11,30,309/– cannot be allowed in absence of the tax audit report and the verification of the existing assets. Further, the Assessing Officer held that sundry creditors of `.7,76,790/– cannot be accepted in absence of confirmation from the concerned parties. Thus, he completed the assessment determining the total income at `.2,19,07,099/–.

3.

Being aggrieved of the additions made in the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Before the First Appellate Authority also, the assessee did not appear to represent its case. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex parte confirming the disallowances / additions made by the Assessing Officer in absence of any supporting evidence filed by the assessee to justify its claim.

4.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has filed the appeal before us. However, as could be seen from the material on record, in none of the dates fixed for hearing earlier before the Tribunal, the assessee either appeared or sought any adjournment. Thus, ultimately, the Bench directed the ld. DR to serve the notice of hearing on the assessee and the appeal was ultimately fixed for hearing on 07/08/2018. When the appeal was called for hearing today, as usual, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. On a query made to the ld. DR, he submitted that hearing notice issued by the Tribunal was served on the assessee on 10/07/2018, Copy of the report of the Assessing Officer along with acknowledgement for service of notice was placed before the Bench. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the assessee is a habitual defaulter with regard to appearance in tax proceedings not only before the departmental authorities but before the Tribunal also.

Therefore, we have no other alternative but to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing learned DR and on the basis of material on record.

5.

We have heard learned DR and perused material on record.

6.

As could be seen from record, despite issuance of several statutory notices the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor furnished any supporting evidence to justify various claims made in the return of income. As it appears, the assessee did not even furnish the tax audit report. Therefore, in absence of any supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of loss and depreciation. Further, he also added back unconfirmed sundry creditors. The situation remains the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) and as well as before us. At no stage the assessee came forward to file any supporting evidence to justly the claims made in the return of income and controvert the finding of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in absence of any supporting material / evidence, furnished by the assessee, the disallowance / additions made by the Assessing Officer cannot be deleted. The grounds raised

are dismissed.

7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.08.2018 Sd/- Sd/- MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Karuna Sr. P.S.

(Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →