ANKITA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 687/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 October 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 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 a delay in filing the appeals and the absence of any application for condonation of delay or appearance by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were deemed defective and could not be proceeded with.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer and enhancing income. Notices sent to the assessee were returned unserved, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals could be heard and decided in the absence of the assessee and without condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 28(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 16.10.2023Pronounced: 18.10.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 686/DEL/2020
ITA No. 687/DEL/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

The captioned appeals, preferred by the assessee, are directed against separate orders, both dated 28.10.2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. as under: (A.Y. 2016-17): “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,20,000 /- made by the Assessing Officer on account of loan taken against pledge of silver treating the same as unexplained.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in enhancing the income on following grounds -

(i) Rs.28,62,350/- on account of gold bar treating the same as unexplained invoking section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; (ii) Rs. 5,53,850/- on account of silver treating the same as unexplained invoking section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; (A.Y. 2017-18): “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,03,651 /- made by the Assessing Officer on account of car expenses and depreciation on ad hoc basis treating the same as perquisite in terms of section 28(iv) of the Act.”

3.

No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. The record reveals that the notices of hearing sent at the address furnished by the assessee in form no. 36, through RPAD, have been returned unserved with the remarks “no such person”. The notice sent through DR could not be served as the assessee had left the address given in form no. 36. The assessee has also not provided the changed address, if any. Therefore, we are constrained to take up the appeal for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

3 & 687/Del/2020 4. The office has reported that there is delay of 41 days in filing the present appeals. The assessee has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. No one has even attended the proceedings despite various opportunities given to the assessee. Therefore, the present appeals filed by the assessee cannot be proceeded with, being barred by time, and are liable to be dismissed as defective. We order accordingly.

5.

Appeals of the assessee in & 687/Del/2020 stand dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 18th October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →