AV Mines Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Assessee Fails to Prove Loan- ITAT Delhi Upholds Rs.1 Cr Addition – No Evidence, No Relief: Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against 68 Addition
Assessee appealed against order of CIT(A) – which had upheld best judgment assessment u/s 144 making addition of Rs.1 crore u/s 68.
AO had issued several notices but received no compliance. Consequently, he completed assessment ex parte, treating advances received from Kohinoor Steels Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 due to failure of Assessee to furnish confirmations, bank statements or identity/creditworthiness details.
CIT(A) considered written submissions filed through e-portal but held that Assessee failed to substantiate genuineness of loan transaction. He upheld AO’s order with detailed reasoning.
Before Tribunal, despite service of notices, no one appeared for Assessee. The matter was decided ex parte after hearing DR. Tribunal observed that both AO & CIT(A) had provided sufficient opportunity, but Assessee remained non-compliant. Since no evidence was furnished to rebut addition, Tribunal found no infirmity in CIT(A)’s order. Accordingly, Tribunal dismissed the appeal & sustained addition of Rs.1 crore u/s 68.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi dated 26.07.2024 for the AY 2011-12. Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 153 of the Income Tax Act and reopening of the case is bad in law and barred by limitation and beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO;
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned order and that too without serving the mandatory notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and en facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned order and that too without serving the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961, by recording incorrect facts and findings and without considering the submissions of assessee;
5. That in any case and any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in making the impugned addition and framing the impugned assessment order which is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction, and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds.
6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
2. In spite of issue of several notices, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR.
