Loading judgment…
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".
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
148, 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
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.
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.
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”.
On these facts we are left with no choice but to dismiss the appeal in limine.
Decision announced in the open court on 24.01.2024.