Sumantra Mukherjee Vs Circle – 3(1) (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee, a salaried individual, did not file his return of income for the relevant assessment year. Reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147, and a notice under Section 148 was served through email. Subsequent notices issued under Section 142(1) remained unanswered, though the assessee responded to two show-cause notices.
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had earned salary income of ₹52,15,953, on which tax had been deducted at source and reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee also earned interest income of ₹40,993 from bank deposits, with corresponding TDS reflected in Form 26AS.
The assessment was completed under Sections 147/144/144B under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. Apart from salary and interest income, the AO added ₹1,59,600 as income from house property in respect of a vacant flat owned by the assessee in Hyderabad. The AO also did not grant credit for TDS amounting to ₹14,32,580 reflected in Form 26AS.
On appeal, the CIT(A) granted relief by directing the AO to allow full TDS credit of ₹14,32,580 as reflected in departmental records. However, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made under the heads of salary income, house property income, and income from other sources. The CIT(A) also upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80TTA, observed that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, found no procedural illegality in the assessment process, and held that the charging of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings were lawful.
While deciding the appeal, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had consistently failed to comply with statutory notices, had not filed the return of income, had not substantiated key factual claims, and had failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding deductions claimed.
Before the Tribunal, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. After examining the record and considering the submissions of the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had adequately dealt with all issues raised by the assessee and had provided reasons for sustaining the additions and disallowances made by the AO. Finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s conclusions, the Tribunal upheld the appellate order and dismissed all grounds raised by the assessee.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
