M J STRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6810/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 January 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)2 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, finding no alternative due to the assessee's non-appearance and the inability to serve notice, dismissed the appeal in limine without delving into the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10, disputing the assumption of reassessment jurisdiction under Section 148 and additions of Rs. 20 lacs under Section 68 and Rs. 36,000/- as unexplained investment. Despite multiple listings, the assessee could not be served the final notice, which was returned with the remark "addressee left without instruction hence returned to sender".

What were the issues?

1. Validity of jurisdiction assumed for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Justification of additions made under Section 68 and as unexplained investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 25/01/2024Pronounced: 25/01/2024

This appeal by the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 06.09.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2009-10.

2.

The challenge of the assessee is twofold firstly the assessee is aggrieved by the assumption of jurisdiction to reassess by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act and secondly on merits the assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs. 20 lacs u/s. 68 of the Act and Rs. 36,000/- as unexplained investment.

3.

The appeal was first listed for hearing on 10.08.2021 thereafter on several occasions the appeal was listed for hearing and the last notice send to the assessee has been returned with a remark “addressee left without instruction hence returned to sender”.

4.

On these facts we are left with no choice but to dismiss the appeal in limine.

5.

Decision announced in the open court on 24.01.2024.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →