Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The appeals challenged the reopening of assessments and the disallowance of cash purchases under Section 40A(3) from M/s. Uflex Ltd. Despite repeated notices, the assessee or her representative failed to appear before the Tribunal to prosecute the appeals.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10. For AY 2008-09, the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,27,857/- u/s 40A(3) was upheld due to lack of material from the assessee to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. The grounds challenging the reopening of assessment were also dismissed. For AY 2009-10, the disallowance of Rs. 1,51,80,843/- u/s 40A(3) and the grounds against reopening were similarly dismissed, applying the same reasoning due to identical facts.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment was valid; and whether the disallowance of cash purchases under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act was justified.
Sections Cited
Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10, respectively. Both the impugned orders are of even date i.e. 25.08.2017.
A perusal of appeal files show that these appeals were filed in 2018 and since then have been listed for hearing on twelve occasions. The notice of hearing of appeal were sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in the Form No. 36 through RPAD the notices were duly served. Acknowledgement of service of notice in respect of the some of the hearings is available on record. The notice of hearing for 25.04.2024 sent to the assessee through RPAD was also duly served and the acknowledgement of service of notice is on record. Despite repeated notices, neither the assessee nor any Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared to represent the assessee. Nor any letter seeking adjournment on behalf of the asseessee was filed. Its seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal, therefore, these appeals are taken up for adjudication with the assistance of ld. DR and on the basis of documents already on record. (AY 2008-09) 3. Shri Dharm Veer Singh, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and reiterated the findings of CIT(A) in upholding the addition made in assessment order. 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee in ground no. 1 & 2 of appeal has assailed reopening of assessment and in ground no. 3 & 4 of appeal has assailed disallowance of Rs. 1,12,27,857/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), on account of cash purchases from M/s. Uflex Ltd. The First Appellate Authority after considering the submissions of assessee have confirmed the addition/disallowances made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, no material is available on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A) on merits of the addition. Hence, ground no. 3 & 4 raised in appeal are dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5. In so far as in ground no. 1 & 2 challenging validity of reopening is concerned, this legal ground has been taken for the first time before the Tribunal. However, no material is placed on record by the assessee in support of said ground. Hence, we have no other option but to dismiss the aforesaid grounds of the assessee. Ergo, ground no. 1 & 2 of appeal are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. (AY 2009-10) 7. The assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising four grounds of appeal
. Ground no. 1 & 2 are against reopening of assessment and in ground no. 3 & 4 of appeal, the assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs. 1,51,80,843/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act on account of cash purchases from M/s. Uflex Ltd.. Since, the facts are identical to AY 2008-09, the findings given by us while deciding the appeal for AY 2008-09 would mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeal for AY 2009-10.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for parity of reasons.