BHA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5208/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)5 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 the assessee's consistent absence and lack of written submissions. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that when the Tribunal fully agrees with the lower authorities, it is not acting illegally by affirming their findings without repeating the reasons.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the addition made by the AO for disallowance of long-term capital loss. The assessee was consistently absent during the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal can affirm the lower authorities' order without repeating the reasons, especially when the assessee is absent and not providing evidence?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

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: 28.07.2025Pronounced: 19.09.2025

Appellant by : None Department by: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 31.05.2018 passed by CIT(A), 30, Delhi, arising out of the order passed by Assessing Officer dated 21.12.2017 for A.Y.2015-16. 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 itself right from filing of the appeal in 2018. Records indicate that all along request for adjournment were being made and which were granted.

3.

The Ld. DR took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 21.12.2017 wherein , against Returned loss of Rs.95,64,056/-, total addition of Rs.67,23,839/- were made on account of inadmissible claim of long-term capital loss. The Ld.CIT(A) through his order dated 31.05.2018 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. We have also noted from the order of Ld.AO that the assessee did not adequately and effectively responded to his

Page 2 of 5 requirements qua submission of Sale Deed and details / evidences for determination of Capital Loss.

5.

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) 31.05.2018 which has been assailed by the assessee, has been passed after carefully considering the facts of the case and correct interpretation of law. 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 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

Page 3 of 5 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 19.09.2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →