POOJA DHIMAN,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-59(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2855/DEL/2022Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 June 2023AY 2017-182 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 because the assessee failed to rectify defects related to the appeal fee, despite being notified. The assessee can seek restoration upon rectifying the defects.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee claimed cash deposits were from business sales, past savings, and income, supported by cash in hand from the previous year.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-rectification of defects in the appeal filing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Hearing: 21.06.2023Pronounced: 27.06.2023

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM :

1.

1. The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 22.07.2022.

2.

The assessee has raised following ground of appeal:-

1.

“Since the assessee duly explained the source of complete cash deposit of Rs.4,80,000 was part of sale proceeds of business which is duly shown in Income tax return u/s 44AD of the Income tax Act. Source of Rs.9,33,500/- was out of past saving and income and remaining cash from sales effected during the year. Further, the assessee showed cash in hand of Rs.9,82,400 as on 31.03.2016 in the balance sheet submitted during the course of assessment proceeding.”

[ Page | 1

3.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is noticed that the Registry has reported defects related to appeal fee paid by the assessee. The assessee has not rectified the defect. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. However, upon rectification of the defect, the assessee may approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th June, 2023.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →