Case Law Details
Geetu Kamra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Introduction: In a recent order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi, the appeal filed by an assessee named Geetu Kamra for the assessment year 2017-18 was dismissed as defective. The grounds for dismissal were her persistent absence from the proceedings and non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directives.
Analysis: The appeal was initially lodged against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 30.08.2022. The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal, including issues relating to the assessment order, procedural aspects of the assessment, and various points relating to the additions made by the assessing officer.
Despite these detailed grounds, the appeal was dismissed without being heard on the merits. From the order’s text, it is evident that the assessee, or her representative, failed to attend the proceedings. Additionally, notices sent by the Registry via speed post were returned unserved with the note “no such person”, indicating issues with the provided address.
Conclusion: This case underscores the importance of procedural compliance in the legal process. It shows that failure to follow court or tribunal directives, in this case, the consistent non-attendance of proceedings and non-compliance with the removal of defects, can lead to the dismissal of an appeal. Thus, while the substantial issues raised in the appeal could potentially have been valid, the non-compliance with procedural aspects led to an unfavorable outcome for the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 30.08.2022.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeal) confirmed the assessment order date 4.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer on a total income of Rs. 3531460.00 is erroneous both on fats as also in law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.
2. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order dated 04.12.2019 is liable to be quashed as it is barred by limitation and voilative of the provision contained section 153 of the Act. The assessment order was issued only on 10.01.2020 and served on the Apparent on 11.01.2020 (as per the delivery report of the speech post department) and since both dates are beyond the period of limitation the assessment order dated Char Bara 04.12.2019 is bad in law.
3. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the completion of assessment u/s 144/143(3) of the Act is bad since no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant and without prejudice to the same even otherwise the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in complying with most of the Notice issued by the Assessing Officer.
4. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the action of the Assessing officer is not seeking directions u/s 143(3)/144 A of the Act from the joint or Additional Commissioner of Income Tax before completing the assessment u/s 144/143(3) of the Act is bad in law.
5. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (Appeal) has erred by not reversing the action of Assessing officer who has without any cogent or reliable material in his possession wrongly and arbitrarily added back the amount of Rs 3218000.00 being cash deposited during the period of demonetization and the entire year as unexplained amount u/s 69 A of the Act and to that extent the addition in the assessment is bad in law.
6. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A)has erred by confirming the action of the Assessing officer in making additions by referring to provisions of section 69 A without appreciating that provision of the section are not applicable in a case where the applicant has deposited cash in the bank account and the provision of section 69 A are applicable only when the assessee is found to be the owner of an asset during the course of search or survey and it cannot be invoked in a case where the assessee has already declared the cash by way of deposit in his bank account and making necessary entries in the books of accounts regularly maintained by it.
7. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A)has erred by confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition on account of cash deposits without making adjustment thereof in the profit of the appellant which ought to have been adjusted since the appellant has already credited the amount of cash deposits by way of sales in the profit and loss account for the year ended 31st March 2017 and the said profit has accordingly been determined and shown in the return of income and therefore the addition made without adjustment in the profit declared in the return has resulted in double addition.
8. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred by confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition on account of cash deposited in banks which was represented by the cash sales and recoveries from Sundry debtors and without appreciating that the amount under their reference has already been considered as income by the appellant in the year under consideration or in the earlier year and therefore the addition made in this respect has resulted in double edition and which cannot be made as per settled legal position.
9. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the assessing officer has further erred in applying the tax rate of 60% u/s 115 BBE as the Ordinance for the same was made effective only from 15.12.2016 and thus the same cannot be applied for the transaction entered into before that date.
10. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case Without prejudice to the aforesaid Grounds even otherwise appellant through the response sheet filed by him on the e-filing portal had declared and placed sufficient material before the Assessing Officer to prove the source of the cash deposits made during the year and the Assessing Officers has while arbitrarily rejection said evidence subject the assessment to be bad in law.
11. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred by confirming the action of the Assessing Officer who has wrongly and arbitrarily added back the entire amount of cash deposits made during the period of demonetisation amounting to Rs. 3168000.00 and a total of Rs. 3218000.00 as unexplained amount u/s 69 A of the act and to that extent the addition in the assessment is bad in law.
12. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the order is further bad as the Assessing officer has arbitrarily & wrongly invoked the provision of section 115 BBE of the act after arbitrarily making an addition of Rs. 3218000.00 u/s 69 A of the Act.
13. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has wrongly charged interest under different sections of the act and also wrongly initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271 AAC(1) of the act while completing the assessment.
14. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case all the grounds of appeal are separate and mutually exclusive to one another.
15. That having regards to facts and circumstances of the case the appellant craves leave to add alter delete cancel or withdraw any ground of appeal at any time before the date hearing or thereafter.”
3. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that no one has been attending the proceedings since 12.12.2022. The Tribunal vide order sheet entry dated 16.01.2023 had directed the defect notice on account of the fact that Form No.36 was signed by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee and not by the assessee. Further, the assessee was directed vide order sheet entry dated 28.03.2023 to remove the defects. The defect as noted by the Tribunal was not removed by the assessee. Moreover, no one has been attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. The notices sent by the Registry through speed post have been returned back unserved by the Postal Authority with remark “no such person”. The assessee has not provided any current address to the Registry where notices of hearing could be served. Under these facts, the present appeal is dismissed being defective.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st June, 2023.
