M/S IDIO CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 182/PAT/2017Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 July 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal and no contrary material was presented. The appeal was dismissed based on the merits considered after hearing the DR.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the ITAT due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided detailed findings upholding the AO's order on various issues.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute their appeal. A specific issue mentioned was the disallowance of income tax demand deposited for earlier years charged to the profit and loss account.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA” BENCH: PATNA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Hearing: 17.05.2022

ORDER

Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Patna [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] dated 11.10.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised six grounds challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) on various issues/additions as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of AO. At the time of hearing when the case was called for hearing neither the assessee nor the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the Bench virtually to argue the case despite service of notice on the assessee according to evidences placed before us. We note that even on the previous occasions the case was fixed as many as six times on different dates and none appeared. Under the present facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and accordingly the same is disposed off after hearing the ld DR and taking into account the merits.

3.

After considering the facts on records and after hearing the Ld. D.R., and also perusing the assessment order of the AO and appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A),

M/s IDIO Construction & Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. we observe that on various issues the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very detailed finding as to how the appeal of the assessee was liable to be dismissed on the issues and was accordingly dismissed.

4.

We note that in ground no. 1, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs. 14,36,819/- which represents the income tax demand deposited by the assessee against the earlier assessment years and charged the same to the profit and loss account which is obviously not allowable as deduction. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) rightly affirmed the order of AO on this issue. Similarly on the other grounds raised and dismissed by the ld CIT(A), a very reasoned ad speaking order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) as there is no material before us to take a contrary view than what have been taken by the first appellate authority. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 8th July, 2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →