Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which had not admitted the appeal under section 249(4) and confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,88,87,632/- for unexplained payments, along with charging interest under various sections. During the ITAT hearing, the assessee's counsel informed that the case had been admitted before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and sought to withdraw the current appeal with liberty to approach the Tribunal later.
Held
The Tribunal, with the consent of the Revenue's representative, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the assessee the liberty to re-approach the Tribunal after the conclusion of the proceedings before the NCLT.
Key Issues
Non-admission of appeal by CIT(A) under section 249(4); confirmation of addition for unexplained payments; charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D; and whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn due to NCLT proceedings.
Sections Cited
249(4), 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Anubhav Sharma
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 16.09.2019.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not admitting appeal due to alleged operation of section 249(4) and has erred in holding that assessee has not paid taxes on the returned income. 2) In any view of the matter and in any case action of Ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal and dismiss the same is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs.3,88,87,632/- (Rs. Three Crores Eighty Eight Lacs Eighty Seven Thousands Six Hundred and Thirty Two only) on account of alleged unexplained payments, out of the amounts mentioned in pages 42 to 47 of Annexure A -1 seized from 202, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi..
2 SRS Ltd. 5) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.3,88,87,632/- (Rs. Three Crores Eighty Eight Lacs Eighty Seven Thousands Six Hundred and Thirty Two only) made in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged unexplained payments is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 6) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law. 7) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of ld. AO in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice.”
At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been admitted in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the ITA may be dismissed at this juncture with liberty to approach the Tribunal after conclusion of the proceedings before the NCLT.
The ld. DR fairly accepted.
Hence, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.