M/S R.B.CHEMICALS,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2554/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 March 2016AY 2000-20013 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving their claim by not furnishing the required details. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee partnership firm claimed set off of a loss incurred in textile business against compensation received. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the loss due to the assessee's failure to furnish details. This decision was upheld by the CIT(A) and subsequently by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of claimed business loss is justified when the assessee fails to provide supporting details. The burden of proof for any claim lies with the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR)

Hearing: 01.03.2016Pronounced: 01.03.2016

Assessee by : None Department by : Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 01.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2016 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06-02-2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-21, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2000-01.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. This is second round of proceeding. The assessee is a partnership firm and it received

M/s. R.B. Chemicals 2 ITA No. 2554/Mum/2013 compensation of Rs.24.19 lakhs. Against the said compensation, the assessee claimed set off of loss of Rs.12.68 lakhs claimed to have been incurred in the textile business. The AO asked the assessee to furnish details relating to the loss claimed, but the assessee failed to furnish the same. Hence the AO disallowed the loss and the same was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, restored the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh by considering the details that may be furnished by the assessee. In the set aside proceedings also, the assessee failed to furnish the details and hence the AO passed ex-parte order to the best of his judgement u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 of the Act by disallowing the loss claimed by the assessee. Before Ld CIT(A) also, the assessee did not furnish relevant details and hence he also confirmed the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

We notice that the specific direction of the Tribunal in the earlier order was to furnish relevant details to the AO, but the assessee has failed to furnish them both before the AO and Ld CIT(A). There should not be any dispute that the burden to prove any claim lies upon the assessee and we notice that the assessee has failed to discharge the said burden. Under these set of facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) and accordingly uphold the same.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 01.03.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →