B D R PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2451/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2025AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (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 upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the grounds of appeal were descriptive and narrative, violating Rule 8 of ITAT rules. The assessee failed to adduce evidence to defend its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition made by the AO for undisclosed income and expenditure. The assessee remained absent for multiple hearings and did not present any evidence to defend its case.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be dismissed due to the assessee's continuous absence and failure to present concise grounds of appeal and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(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: ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 19.09.2025

Appellant by : None Department by: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by CIT(A), 35, Delhi, arising out of the order passed by Assessing Officer dated 16.03.2015 for A.Y.2007-08. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.

2.

The assessee was called absent in the case. It has been noted that continuously the appellant assessee has been absenting for three consecutive hearings since April-2025.

3.

The Ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 16.03.2015 wherein total addition of Rs.15,30,000/- were made on account of undisclosed income and undisclosed expenditure. The Ld.CIT(A) through his order dated 07.02.2017 confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO both on the legal grounds as well as merits of the addition. The Ld.DR argued in favour of the order of lower authorities.

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. We have also noted that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this case are not concise but rather fall in the category of descriptive and narrative grounds. Rule 8 of the ITAT rules mandate that every appeal filed before the tribunal must contain concise grounds of appeal, classified under distinct heads. Thus, Rule 8 mandates as under:

“…Contents of memorandum of appeal. 8. Every memorandum of appeal shall be written in English and shall set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of appeal without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively…”

5. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) 07.02.2017 which has been assailed by the assessee, has been passed after carefully considering the facts of the case and correct interpretation of law. The assessee on its part has not adduced 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 considering 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

Page 3 of 5 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.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →