CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

Sudesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

…lantibus non-dermientibus jura subvenunt" i.e. “the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who 4 sleep over their rights” is applicable in this case. A reference is made to judgment of Hon.bte SC in the case of C1T Vs B. N. Bhattacharya and another, 118 ITR 461 wherein their lordships held that. “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” During the appeal proceedings no reply was filed by the assessee. Therefore/findings of the assessing officer are upheld and grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed.” 6. Since the learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the asses…

Metal India, Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2007-08

…st appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine for want of prosecution on the part of Assessee after relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) and of Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. Ultimately, the ld. Commissioner determined that since the Assessee has chosen not to appear during the appellate proceedings, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is sustained. 3 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Assessee is…

Hari Kishan Babbar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-35(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Kishan Babbar, Vs. Ito, C2/986, Palam Vihar, Ward-35(4), Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122017. Pan: Aaqpb8233Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kavita Saini, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2022 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That In This Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order In Limine Applying The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bn Bhattacharya (1997) 118 Itr 461 (Sc) & The Decision Of The Itat Delhi In The Case Cit Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., Reported In 38 Itd 320 (Delhi). It Was Also Submitted That The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Ex Parte Qua The Assessee Without Giving Any Final Opportunity To The Assessee & Without Deciding The Grounds Taken By The Assessee On Merit As Per The Requirement Of Section 250 (6) Of The Act.

…lhi, relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in limine applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). It was also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A) ex parte qua the assessee without giving any final opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the grounds taken by the assessee on merit as per…

Shri Bhagwan, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-3, Rewari

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Bhagwan, Vs. Ito, Vpo-Saharanwas, Ward-3, Tehsil & Dist. Rewari, Rewari. Rewari, Haryana – 123401. Pan: Aqupb7507M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2019 Of The Cit(A), Rohtak, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Has Been Filed. However, We Find This Matter Could Be Disposed Of Even In The Absence Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Adjudicate This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Sr. Dr. 3. On Perusal Of The Record, I Find That In This Case, The Ld. Ao Has Passed The Assessment Order Ex Parte In View Of Non-Appearance By The Assessee’S Representative. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Passed The Impugned Order In Limine Applying The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bn Bhattacharya (1997) 118 Itr 461 (Sc) & The Decision Of The Itat Delhi In The Case Cit Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., Reported In 38 Itd 320 (Delhi). I Also Find That The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Ex Parte Qua The Assessee Without Giving Any Final Opportunity To The Assessee & Without Deciding The Grounds Taken By The Assessee On Merit As Per The Requirement Of Section 250 (6) Of The Act.

…has passed the assessment order ex parte in view of non-appearance by the assessee’s representative. The ld. CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order in limine applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). I also find that the impugned order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A) ex parte qua the assessee without giving any final opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the grounds taken by the assessee on merit as per the requir…

Reliable Finance Corp. (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 21(2), New Delhi

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmareliable Finance Corp. New Vs. Ito Ward-21(2) New Delhi Delhi Appellant Respondent Pan: Aaacr0282Q

…im to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Hon’ble Apex Court’s decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Reliable Finance Corp. Pvt Ltd. 3 Chamaria 66 ITR 443 (SC) and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an underassessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as, once the assessment proceedings are set in m…

Gulshan Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-2, Haryana

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Smt Diva Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar Ito H. No.223/1, Main Bazar, Vs Ward-2 Gohana, Gohana, Haryana - Haryana 131301 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…impugned order. It is further seen that the addition made in the assessment order was confirmed relying on the position of law as considered by the Hon’ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the case of TukojiraoHolkar Vs. CWT223 ITR 480 and CIT Vs. Bhattacharjee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for non representation. On a perusal of page-2 of the impugned order it is seen that apart from challenging the order on the merits of the addition the assessee had also raised 3 jurisdictional grounds vide No.1, 2 and 3. The issue as per page-4 and para 6 of the impugned has been considered to be “general in nature” holding that no spec…

Nitin Educational Society, Mewat vs. ITO (Exemption), Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non –representation, it

Bench: Smt Diva Singhita No. 1352/Del/2017 [A.Y 2012-13]

…s that before the ld. CIT(A), adjournment applications were moved. However, on 10.11.2016, the assessee failed to appear leading to the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [Supreme Court] holding that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The order, accordingly, cannot be upheld. 6. Considering the fact that the grievance of the assessee exists, it was deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance wit…

Nitya Infotech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is “Dismissed"

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7448/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Nitya Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, (Merged With M/S Vatsal Ward-18(3), Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. M-7, New Delhi M-52/53, Ground Floor, Gali No. 10, Anand Prabat Industrial Area, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn5446L Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jeetender Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2022

…pportunities to appellant, the appellate proceedings remained unattended 3.1 From the above, it is clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Bhattacharjee and Another (118 ITR 461) (at pages 477 & 478) that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of Indi…

Delight Resorts P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

…ve remained unnoticed. It is further seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decisions of Delhi ITAT in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320(Del. Trib.) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC). It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal is mandated by the Income Tax Act to set-out the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons, of the First Appellate Authority for concurring with the order or modifying, etc. We have seen that the order under challenge does not meet these statutory requirements a…

Dependable Transport P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

…ve remained unnoticed. It is further seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decisions of Delhi ITAT in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320(Del. Trib.) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC). It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal is mandated by the Income Tax Act to set-out the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons, of the First Appellate Authority for concurring with the order or modifying, etc. We have seen that the order under challenge does not meet these statutory requirements a…

Sham Sunder Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2011-12 Sham Sunder Gupta, Vs. Acit, H-108, 2Nd Floor, Circle-7(1), Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aispg6871B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Has Been Filed. However, We Find This Matter Could Be Disposed Of Even In The Absence Of The Assessee. Therefore, We Proceed To Adjudicate This Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Sr. Dr. 3. On Careful Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), I Find The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed The Impugned Order In Limine Applying The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bn Bhattacharya (1997) 118 Itr 461 (Sc) & The Decision Of The Itat Delhi In The Case Cit Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., Reported In 38 Itd 320 (Delhi). We Also Find That The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Ex Parte Qua The Assesseer Without Giving Any Final Opportunity To The Assessee & Without Deciding The Grounds Taken By The Assessee On Merit.

…cate this appeal after hearing the ld. Sr. DR. 3. On careful perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), I find the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in limine applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). We also find that the impugned order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A) ex parte qua the assesseer without giving any final opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the grounds taken by the assessee on merit. 4. The ld. Sr…