VENKETSHWARA TEX -O-FAB, PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2609/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 August 2017AY 2004-053 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and pursue the case despite proper notice. The Tribunal cited several High Court and ITAT decisions supporting dismissal for lack of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of share capital under Section 68. The assessee also argued that the reassessment exceeded the original scope and the reopening itself was invalid.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of share capital was justified and whether the reassessment proceedings were valid. The primary issue leading to dismissal was the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, AHMEDABAD ‘C’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Pramod Kumar, AM:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 24th July 2014, passed by the learned CIT(A)-II, Surat, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year 2004-05, on the following grounds :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of share capital accepted from 5 companies as inter-corporate investment without appreciating the complete evidences of return of income of share holders, their Balance Sheet, Bank Statement, share allotment form and share applications submitted to Assessing Officer. The addition of Rs.25,00,000/- should be deleted.

ITA No.2609/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Page 2 of 3 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Act on account of share capital accepted from 5 companies whereas the case was reopened for taxing the share capital of Rs.5,00,000/- from one company and thereby exceeded the jurisdiction. The addition of Rs.25,00,000/- should therefore, be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act as assessment cannot be reopened for taxing the share capital as income of the company. The reopening should, therefore, be held as null and void.”

2.

It is noticed that when the matter came up for hearing, none appeared for and on behalf of the assessee appellant. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post as per the address given in column no.10 of Form No.36 which has come back un-served with the postal remark “left”. No information regarding change of address is available on record. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 17th day of August, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 17th day of August, 2017

ITA No.2609/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Page 3 of 3 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →