RISHABH BIRLA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-24, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1151/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 August 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)5 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, noting the consistent non-prosecution by the assessee and the absence of any material presented to contradict the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order was deemed well-reasoned after thorough examination of submissions, material, and judicial precedents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Late Shri Anurag Birla (L/H Shri Rishabh Birla), challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2012-13, which confirmed various additions and disallowances made by the AO. These included undisclosed income under Section 68, disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii), and disallowances for commission, foreign travel, interest on tax refund, vehicle, and telephone expenses. The assessee failed to appear during multiple scheduled hearings before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the various additions and disallowances, including undisclosed income, interest on borrowed funds, and several expense disallowances, confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified, and the consequence of the assessee's consistent non-appearance during appeal proceedings before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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: 16.05.2024Pronounced: 14.08.2024

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-11, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’) for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2012-13, on the following grounds:

ITA No.- 1151/Del/2018 Rishabh Birla. “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and under the law in confirming the following additions/disallowances as made by the AO: a) Rs. 16,74,868/- being the addition confirmed u/s 68 of 1.T. Act of undisclosed income on account of difference in receipts from M/s Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. as shown in the return and as reflected in Form 26AS. b) Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act attributable to borrowed amount of Rs.68,00,000/- utilized for purchase of Shop at Grand Mall, G.S. 0122, Gurgaon allegedly not used for business purposes. c) Rs.2,30,357/- being the disallowance confirmed on account of commission expenses. d) Rs.89,568/- being 50% disallowance sustained on account of foreign travel expenses. e) Rs.3,22,172/- being the addition confirmed on account of interest received on income tax refund. f) Rs.54,433/-being 5% disallowance sustained on account of vehicle expenses. g) Rs.35,601/- being 5% disallowance sustained on expenses account of telephone 2. That without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the additions/disallowances as sustained/confirmed are very excessive.

3.

That the Appellant reserves his right to add, amend/modify the grounds of appeal.”

2.

When the appeal called for hearing on 16.05.2024 none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no any adjournment was sought. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that for a long period, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee for the scheduled hearings on the following dates: 06.12.2023 and 27.02.2024.

ITA No.- 1151/Del/2018 Rishabh Birla. 3. We have heard the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. Sr. DR”) and perused the material available on record. Due to consistent non-prosecution from the assessee’s side, we have no option except to dispose off the appeal after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR.

4.

The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders passed by both lower authorities.

5.

From the bare perusal of material available on record, the assessee / appellant challenges the addition / disallowances as made by the Ld. AO. We carefully perused the orders passed by both lower authorities. The Ld. CIT(A), while deciding appeal filed by assessee, has gone thoroughly into submissions advanced by assessee, material furnished before him and judicial precedents on the issue and dismissed the appeal of assessee. In the present appeal neither assessee nor his representative have appeared and produced any material to contradict the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly examined and scanned all the issues and well reasoned order passed; so there is no any Page 3 of 5

ITA No.- 1151/Del/2018 Rishabh Birla. ground for interference and impugned order deserves to be confirmed.

6.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14.08.2024

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →