JAVI HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 706/DEL/2025Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 December 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)4 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 agreed with the findings of the lower authorities. It held that the assessee's consistent absence and lack of any defence material meant there was no basis to assail the order of the lower authorities, relying on the principle that law aids vigilant litigants.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee remained absent throughout the appellate proceedings and did not provide any written submissions or evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee can be sustained when the assessee fails to appear and present any defence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.12.2025Pronounced: 10.12.2025

ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 12.08.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 02.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income TaxAct, 1961.

2.

The assessee was called absent in the case. It has been noted that continuously the appellant assessee has been absenting itself ever since the appeal was filed in 2018. Records indicate that all along the assessee has been absenting himself from appearance. Request for adjournment were being made and which were granted, but no compliance has been made.

3.

The Ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. The Ld.CIT(A) through his order dated 12.08.2024 confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO qua the merits of the addition. The Ld. DR argued in favour of the order of lower authorities. It was contended that the order has been made after carefully considering the varied facts of this case in the light of material available on records.

4.

We have considered the arguments of the Ld. DR in the light of material available on records. The assessee was called absent and it has also been noted that it has been regularly absenting itself from appearance.

It is trite principle of law that law aids vigilant litigants only. Before us the assessee has not given any written submission or evidence to effectively assail the order of lower authorities.

5.

We have examined the order of Ld.First Appellate Authority and are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)

12.08.2024 which has been assailed by the assessee, has been passed after carefully considering the facts of the case and correct interpretation of law. Before us the assessee has not advanced any evidence to defend its case. We therefore totally agree and uphold the findings of the lower authorities. In this regard we rely upon the order of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Global Vantedge Pvt. Ltd dated 14.03.2013 1829 / Del / 2010 and / Del / 2011 holding as under:-

….The learned counsel for the revenue contended that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on which the decision was given against the assessee or the department. The criticism made by the High Court that the Tribunal had “failed to perform its duty in merely affirming the conclusion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is apparently unmerited.”

6.

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld.First Appellate Authority therefore does not require any intervention at this stage. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is sustained. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th December, 2025.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →