MAHENDER KUMAR MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2147/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-083 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 noted that the assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite proper notice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding additions made by the Assessing Officer. The appeal concerned assessment year 2007-08 and involved disallowances related to cash payments, vehicle expenses, and telephone expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance. The specific grounds of appeal related to disallowances under Section 40A(3) and other expenses were not adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

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 ‘E’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjana, Senior DR
Hearing: 17.05.2016

Date of Hearing : 17.05.2016 Date of Order : 17.05.2016

O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Shri Mahender Kumar Mittal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2007-08 on the grounds inter alia that :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (Appeals) has erred :-

In sustaining the following additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order : (i) Rs.8,05,000/- in contravention of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts that the genuineness and identity of the payee had not been doubted by any lower authority. Rs.6,972/- being 1/6th out of total vehicle expenses (ii) and depreciation of Rs.41,830/-. (iii) Rs.3,694/- being 1/6th out of total telephone expenses of Rs.22,165/-. All the above actions being arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted must be quashed.”

2.

In the present appeal, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 28.01.2016 and the case was adjourned to 17.05.2016 as the Bench was not functioning. The notice for the next date of hearing i.e. 17.05.2016 was also sent through RPAD but the appellant has not preferred to put in his appearance himself or through his authorized representative nor sent any request for adjournment. So, it is apparent on record that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal.

3.

Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing. 5. In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted. Order pronounced in open court on this 17th day of May, 2016.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →