M/S RANA IRON & POWER LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, noting the assessee's failure to discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 and the settled position regarding delayed deposit of employee PF contributions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT and also refused to accept notices. The assessee had also not appeared before the CIT(A) or furnished evidence, nor responded to a reference made by the AO under Section 250(4).
What were the issues?
The primary issues were the assessee's failure to provide evidence for transactions and the disallowance for delayed deposit of employee PF contributions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA
Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :
As the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee. Notices have been received back with the report of refusal. In the light of facts as assessee is not appearing for long, no more opportunity is justified justify. The arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below.
Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that before Ld. CIT(A) after filing written submissions, non-appeared to support the submission or filing evidences and Ld. CIT(A) has discussed at length the facts questioning credibility of transaction. Reference was even made u/s 250(4) of the Act to the Ld. AO but there also no evidence was produced by the assessee. Assessee failed to discharge burden u/s 68 of the Act. The issue of disallowance for delay in deposit of employees contribution of PF now duly stands settled in favour of the Revenue and thus, the grounds raised have no substance. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026