M/S. R & K FAIR DEALS PVT LTD,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BELLARY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2790/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 February 2018AY 2009-102 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 found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the validity of reopening under Section 148. Grounds related to the merits of the case were rejected as they were not raised before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing, but the notice sent to their provided address was returned unserved. The assessee did not provide an alternative address. The appeal was therefore heard ex parte.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 148 and the addition of Rs. 9 lacs as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal also considered whether grounds not raised before the lower appellate authority could be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-A’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Prasad K, JDIT DR

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – Gulbarga dated 28.09.2017 for A. Y. 2009 – 10.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 7 grounds and has also raised 4 additional grounds. But the effective grievances are only two. First is regarding validity of reopening u/s 148 and second issue is regarding addition of Rs. 9 lacs u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit.

3.

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 19.02.2018 and notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36. The notice has come back unserved. The assessee has not provided any other address on which the notice can be served on the assessee. Under these facts, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex parte qua the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have considered the submissions of the learned DR of the revenue. I find that only five grounds were raised by the assessee before CIT (A) as reproduced by him on page 2 of his order and it tallies with Form 35 copy filed before the tribunal. As per these grounds, the grievance of the assessee is only about validity of reopening u/s 148 and no ground was raised on merit. The grounds raised by the assessee before CIT (A) were rejected by him by following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. M/s Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. as reported in 378 ITR 351. It is also noted by CIT (A) in his order that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). I find no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) on the issue regarding validity of reopening. The issue on merit does not arise out of the order of CIT (A) because it was not raised before CIT (A). Hence these grounds on merit are rejected for this reason that these grounds do not arise from the order of CIT (A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →