AV MINES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4371/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 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 did not appear despite several notices. After hearing the DR and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that the assessment was completed as a best judgment assessment under Section 144 due to the assessee's failure to furnish details, and the cash credit under Section 68 was treated as unexplained. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2011-12. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily contested the validity of the assessment order, alleging non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act, including Section 147 and Section 148, and also challenged an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was passed in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act, and if the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 153,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 68,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.08.2025

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 04.08.2025 24.09.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi dated 26.07.2024 for the AY 2011-12. Assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 153 of the Income Tax Act and reopening of the case is bad in law and barred by limitation and beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO; 1

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned order and that too without serving the mandatory notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and en facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned order and that too without serving the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961;

4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions of assessee;

5. That in any case and any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in making the impugned addition and framing the impugned assessment order which is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction, and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.

6.

That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2.

In spite of issue of several notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

Heard Ld. DR, perused the record before us. On perusal of the assessment order and the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), we 2 observed that the assessment was completed as best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act, wherein the AO after issue of several notices to the assessee the advances received by the assessee from Kohinoor Steels Pvt. Ltd. was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the absence of any details furnished by the assessee as called for by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to make the submissions and after considering the submissions of the Assessee filed through e filing portal. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee with elaborate reasons with which we agree.

Accordingly, we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →