RAJ DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2515/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 August 2018AY 2012-135 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 the AO was justified in passing the assessment order under Section 144 due to the assessee's continuous absence and failure to provide evidence. The CIT(A)'s findings were also found to be judicious and well-reasoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) despite multiple notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144. The appeal filed before the CIT(A) was dismissed on merits after condoning a significant delay, and the assessee also remained absent before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144 was justified, and whether the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were valid given the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: HON’BLE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

The present Appealfiled by the assesseeis against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai, dated 20.01.17 for AY 2012-13.

Raj Developer. 2. At the very outset, our attention was drawn to the orders passed by respective revenue authorities i.e. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). From the perusal of the orders, we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before the AO and therefore Assessment order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act was passed.

Subsequently, assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) after a delay of 230 days and Ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay had dismissed the appeal on merits by dealing with the grounds raised by the assessee. The operative portion of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para n. 7, which is reproduced below:-

I have gone through statement of facts, grounds of appeal and assessment order. First of all, it is found that the AO was justified in passing the assessment order u/s 144. He issued 10 notices of hearing. The assessee neither flied any adjournment petition nor attended the hearing in response to any of the notices. Further, the additions made are also found to be rational and justified. For example, in respect of unsecured loans of Rs. 4,16,45,645/-, the AO has Raj Developer. disallowed only 10% of these loans. In case of various expenses claimed, the AO has disallowed only 10% of such expenses. In case of investment in immovable property as per AIR information, the entire addition was made for the reason that the source was not substantiated by filing details and evidences. In view of above, the order u/s 144 as well as quantum of additions are found to be justified. In view of above, all the grounds of appeal are rejected.

After having going through the records, we find that the AO was justified in passing Assessment order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act as even in spite of 10 notices, the assessee had neither appeared before the AO nor submitted any documentary evidence. Before Ld. CIT(A) again, nobody appeared and the conduct of the assessee with regard to continuous absence demonstrates that assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Even before us, neither the assessee nor his representative has appeared. Apart from that no paper book has been filed and Raj Developer. the findings of the revenue authorities have also not been controverted or rebutted. Therefore in these circumstances, we have no other option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. We see no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned and consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th August, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. Sharma) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 08.08.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay Raj Developer. आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned यवभागीयप्रयतयनयि, आयकरअपीलीयअयिकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →