PAN INSURANCE BROKERAGE COMPANY P.LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4228/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 July 2018AY 2006-073 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 dismissed the assessee's appeals as no material was furnished to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee also failed to appear for hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss, but did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer, leading to a best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment and penalty, finding the submitted documents incomplete and expenses unreasonable.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly confirmed the best judgment assessment and penalty when the assessee failed to provide complete documentation and cooperate with the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Hearing: 16.7.2018Pronounced: 16.7.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 4228/Mum/2013
I.T.A. No. 4229/Mum/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :

Both appeals filed by the assessee relate to A.Y. 2006-07 and they are directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-18, Mumbai. The appeal numbered as relates to quantum assessment proceedings and other appeal relates to penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though adjournment was granted to the assessee at its request on earlier occasions. Further we notice that last opportunity was given to the assessee on the last date of hearing. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We have heard learned DR and perused the record. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring a total

2 M/s. Pan Insurance Brokerage Company Pvt. Ltd. loss of ` 74.86 lakhs and it was selected for scrutiny. The assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed assessment to the best of his judgement u/s. 144 of the Act determining total income at Nil by disallowing claim of loss of ` 74.86 lakhs.

4.

Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed financial statements and tax audit report and hence the learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer submitted that the documents filed by the assessee are incomplete and further observed that various expenses claimed by the assessee do not appear to be reasonable. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order.

5.

The assessing Officer also levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same was confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

6.

Before us, the assessee has not furnished any material to contradict the findings given by the learned CIT(A) in both the appeals. Hence, we do not have any other option but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in both the appeals.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 16.7.2018.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →