DCIT CC-4 vs. PGF LTD,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3407/DEL/2007Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2025AY 2001-2002Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the case ex-parte due to the consistent non-prosecution by the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the income, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, concerning loans, was justified. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions without appreciating the documents submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 09.04.2025

Aforetitled appeal by Assessee is preferred against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2015-16, on the following grounds of appeal: - ITA No.- 3407/Del/2023 Vinod Co�on Corp Pvt. Ltd. “

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in law.

2. That the Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by confirming the addition of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- made by the Ld/- AO under section 68 of the Act which is unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law.

3. That the Ld/-CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by sustaining the opinion of Ld. AO of holding that the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of the loan transactions is not proved by the appellant when all the documents relevant to these ingredients were submitted by the appellant which is unjustified and bad in law.

4. That the Ld/-CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by concluding that there is no reason to differ with the findings of the Ld/- AO without appreciating the details and documents submitted by the appellant company which is highly unjustified.

5. That the Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case confirming the addition of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- on merely relying on the report of investigation wing in the case of S.K. Jain for A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12 when that report had absolutely no nexus with the transactions carried out by the appellant in F.Y. 2014-15 with M/s R.K.G. Finvest Ltd. and M/s Venus Securities Pvt. Ltd and with other two lenders namely M/s Mahavir Industries Limited an d M/s Venus Securities Pvt. Ltd., which are totally unconnected with S.K. Jain.

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,76,250/- made by Ld/- AO by holding that a commission of that sum at a rate of 1.75% on Rs. 2,15,00,000/-for arranging accommodation entries in lieu of cash was paid, when no such evidence of payment of cash for arranging accommodation entries or for commission was on record or confronted to the appellant.

7. That the Ld/- CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,82,082/- made by Ld/-AO, disallowing the interest payment of that sum to the four lenders which is unjustified and bad in law.

8. The appellant company craves the right to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal.”

ITA No.- 3407/Del/2023 Vinod Co�on Corp Pvt. Ltd.

2.

At the outset, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the time of hearing on 17.03.2025, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and nor was any adjournment sought. From the bare perusal of record, it reveals that since long period and even from inception of this appeal nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee on listed dates for hearing.

3.

We have heard the 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 decide this case ex- parte after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR. During hearing, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Facts of the case may be concisely described as the assessee / appellant company filed return of income on 27.10.2015, declaring income of Rs. 10,17,020/- and in the meanwhile, the case was selected was through scrutiny CASS and in pursuance thereof, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, issued and duly served to the assessee company.

ITA No.- 3407/Del/2023 Vinod Co�on Corp Pvt. Ltd.

5.

Vide the impugned assessment order, certain additions were made by the Ld. AO. Aggrieving by the same, the assessee / appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by stating that the assessment order was self- speaking and did not require any interference and also stated that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee / appellant never being responded with expressing opinion that assessee / appellant was reluctant to pursue the appeal. The assessee / appellant now assails the order of the Ld. CIT(A) before us.

6.

From a bare perusal of the record, it shows that after preferring instant appeal, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite the issuances of notices by different modes. As we noticed that in the course of first appellate proceedings, also, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that notices were issued on different -different dates, but there was no response from the assessee and on behalf of the assessee / appellant, no details were filed, and on particular dates, no adjournment were sought and in the entire proceedings reluctancy of appellant were manifested and before us, the same thing repeating.

ITA No.- 3407/Del/2023 Vinod Co�on Corp Pvt. Ltd. 7. In such a circumstance, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly observed that the appellant is not interested in the rational disposal of the appeal. We perused both orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. AO expressed that assessee / appellant failed to discharge its onus and the Ld. AO passed a detailed, elaborated order, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any ground exist for interference; hence, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

8.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09.04.2025.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →