SRI. B.V. SAMPATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1265/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 February 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly adjudicated the issues. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed in limine for non-payment of tax on returned income. The assessee further appealed to the ITAT against this dismissal and other grounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal before the CIT(A) was maintainable without payment of tax on returned income, and whether certain additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA.1265/Bang/2015
I.T.A No.1265/Bang/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A)

inter alia on the following grounds :

1. The orders of authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in dismissing the appeal in-limine holding that the appeal is not maintainable on account of non-payment of the tax on the returned income under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in not disposing off the grounds raised by the appellant with regard to the addition of ITA.1265/Bang/2015 Page - 2 Rs.1,00,00,000/- made by the learned DOT by overlooking the fact that the project had gone into disputes and hypothetically treating the amount of advance received by the appellant as no longer payable/refundable/non-refundable, which does not constitute income of the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Honble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled.

5.

For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.

2.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 02.02.2017, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of the notice of hearing. Since the assessee did not appear, we have no option, but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee. Accordingly, the revenue was heard.

3.

We have carefully examined the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the impugned grounds and we find that he has rightly adjudicated the issues in detail and we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT (Appeals).

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of February, 2017.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →