M/S RANA IRON & POWER LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3618/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 June 2023AY 2010-112 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 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?

Section 68,Section 250(4)

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

Hearing: 07.06.2023Pronounced: 07.06.2023

Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :

1.

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.

2.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →