Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Mall Hotel Limited, filed its return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The assessee challenged an assessment order before the CIT(A), aggrieved by the disallowance of Rs. 17,60,060/- on account of ESI/EPF not deposited on time.
Held
The Tribunal noted that no addition was made under Section 143(3) of the Act and the order under Section 143(1) was accepted by the assessee. The assessee failed to demonstrate any grievance against the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable when no addition was made by the AO and the assessee has not shown any grievance against the order.
Sections Cited
250, 143(2), 142(1), 143(1), 36(1)(va), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 18.06.2025.
Mall Hotel Limited, Delhi 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of hotels, running of cinema theatre, business income from shops and rental income received from shop given on rent. Original return declaring income of Rs. 11,13,11,270/- was e-filed on 30th October, 2018 by the Assessee’s company. The case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment under the e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the issue of verification of genuineness of expenses. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued on 22.09.2019 and subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act with detail questionnaire was issued on served online through e-filing portal which was also served upon the assessee. In response to these notices, the assessee company furnished relevant details/ documents through e-filing portal.
2.1 After perusal of the document available on record and assessee’s submission, the assesseee’s returned income as modified by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act was accepted. The assessee challenged the assessment order in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The contents of the ground No. 2 shows that the assessee is aggrieved from the acceptance of disallowance of Rs. 17,60,060/- on account of ESI/EPF having not deposited on or before due date u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act as against the returned income of Rs. 11,13,11,270/-. The notices were issued to the Mall Hotel Limited, Delhi appellant during the scrutiny proceedings and no reply was filed on the ground that the Ld. counsel was not available. The ld. CIT(A) in para No. 4.1 of the impugned order observed that “since the assessee, even after seven notices, has failed to submit any document in support of its appeal, the appeal is being decided on the basis of facts and material available on record”. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal observing that the appeal was not maintainable as no mandatory notice has been issued to the assessee, before passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act as no addition has been made. It was further observed that it was not a case of merger of the order of u/s 143(1) of the Act into the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’), grossly erred in sustaining of Rs. 17,60,060/- as per assessment order passed by the ld. A.O.. In spite grounds of appeal and the records are available with him which is uncalled for, based on surmises and conjectures and bad in law.
2. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case order passed by ld. A.O. and CIT(A) is arbitrary in nature, against the principle of natural justice & equity and also without giving proper opportunity of being heard.
Mall Hotel Limited, Delhi 3. The appellant hereby prays for any consequential relief arising out of the above appeal and further prays for any addition, modification, deletion and alteration in the ground of appeal for the serve of Natural Justice.”
4. We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR on behalf of Revenue and also examined the record. At the very outset, the ld. DR submitted that the appeal is not maintainable and is misuse of process of law because the assessee has failed to show any grievance against the appellate order which has not made any addition and the assessee has not questioned or challenged the order under section 143(1) of the Act passed in this case. Hence, the Ld. DR prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR on behalf of the Assessee could submit nothing to controvert the arguments of the Ld. DR.
6. On examining the record as discussed above, we have noticed that there is force in the argument raised on behalf of the revenue by the Ld. DR. It is admitted position that no addition was made by making an order under section 143(3) of the Act. The order under section 143(1) of the Act has been accepted by the assessee. The assessee has failed to show any grievance against the impugned order as no addition was made by passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act. For these reasons, we are convinced that the appeal is devoid of merit. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Mall Hotel Limited, Delhi 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 24th December, 2025