What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and produce any material to contradict the findings of the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had exhaustively examined all issues and passed a well-reasoned order.

The assessee company, M/s Reets Plastics Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The assessee did not appear for hearings, and notices sent to their registered address were returned as 'left without address'.

What were the issues?

The appeal raised issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, the AO's independent inquiry, the AO's failure to pass a speaking order, and the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions without allowing cross-examination.

Reets Plastics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21.05.2024Pronounced: 20.08.2024

This appeal by assessee preferred against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as [“Ld. CIT(A)”]), dated 26.06.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12, on the following grounds of appeal:

Page 1 of 5 ITA No.- 7074/Del/2019 Reets Plastics Pvt. Ltd. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Learned CIT (A) is bad both in the eye of law and in facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO on the basis of information received from some source not even named in the reasons to believe recorded and without conducting an independent enquiry involving application of mind as required by law.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that A.O. made an attempt to cure the defects existed in reasons to believe recorded by the department before initiation of reassessment proceedings.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition by ignoring the fact that the A.O. did not pass a speaking order with regard to the objections raised by the assessee rather passed the assessment order even without issuing any show cause notice.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition by ignoring the fact that the A.O. did not dealt with the submission made by the assessee vide letter dated December 15, 2018.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the AO was under no obligation to allow cross examination of persons.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee company failed to produce any cogent evidence in support of their claim.

That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

When the appeal is called for hearing on 21.05.2024 neither the assessee nor the representative on behalf of the assessee has appeared.

ITA No.- 7074/Del/2019 Reets Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 3. From the bare perusal of records before us, after filing the present appeal, there is no any representation from the assessee’s side, for quite long time i.e. right from 03.03.2021 to 21.05.2024, total non-appearance of assessee shown as per record and in this period, no any adjournment sought by or on behalf of assessee.

During above period several notices have been sent to assessee through the registry and also been through the Department to the registered address but the notices sent through RPAD returned with remark “left without address”. Considering above facts, and circumstances, there is no other option except to dispose off the present appeal after hearing the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“ld. SR. DR”). So, we heard the Ld. DR and carefully perused the material available on record.

In the present appeal, the assessee / appellant challenged the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) on the basis of information received from same source not even named in the reason to believe recorded and without conducting an independent enquiry which was required by law and the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly confirmed the addition, despite, the fact that Ld. AO made

ITA No.- 7074/Del/2019 Reets Plastics Pvt. Ltd. an attempt to cure the defects existed in reason to believe recorded by the Department before initiation of reassessment proceedings.

As we mentioned earlier, right from filing this appeal, assessee himself or on behalf of assessee never appeared in proceedings.

The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issues has gone into submissions made by the assessee, and material available on record, and dismissed the appeal. In the present appeal neither assessee nor his representative appeared to produced any material to contradict the finding of lower authorities and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly examined and scanned all the issues and exhaustive, detailed and well reasoned order passed, so there is no any ground exist for interference and impugned order deserves to be confirmed.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.08.2024

REETS PLASTICS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 21(2), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments