Case Law Details
SH. Inder Pal Singh Bedi Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Bench is of considered opinion that a presumption of truth is attached to the record of proceedings conducted by public authorities as reflected in their orders though the same is rebuttal. The assessee had the opportunity to rebut the findings of Ld. Assessing officer with regard to denial of the parties, who allegedly had issued bills. However, the assessee by his non-appearance failed to rebut the observations and findings of the AO by any evidence, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Rather non-appearance gives rise to presumption that assessee had nothing to rebut to the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer. That being so there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. First Appellate Authority or FAA”) whereby the appeal against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), of the assessee was dismissed on the basis that when the appeal was fixed for hearing on 19.04.2017, 18.01.2018, 15.02.2018 and 1.11.2018 and thereafter on 25.10.2018, the appellant-assessee failed to appear therefore, presuming that the assessee does not wish to pursue the appeal, the appeal was dismissed by the ld. First Appellate Authority.
2. The assessee has preferred the appeal raising following grounds :-
“1. Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law in dismissing appeal without any notice and addition confirmed in dismissing appeal is bad in law.
2. Ld. CIT (A) did not consider following Ground Of Appeal filed before Ld. CIT (A).
- Ld. A.o. has erred in fats and in law in rejecting cost of Improvement at Rs. 17,21,940/- and Indexed cost thereon at Rs. 34,43,880/- whereas complete evidence of Improvement by Contractors and Bills were filed and Ld. CIT (A) without considering dismissed the Appeal.
- Ld. A.O. did not confront Appellant of contractors at the back of Appellant on telephone and thus disallowance made of cost of improvement. Indexed Cost at Rs. 34,43,880/- is Bad in Law and Ld. CIT (A) without considering dismissed the Appeal
- Ld. A.O. erred in levying interest u/s 234A; 234B; 234C and 234D as Appellant denies its liability for levy of Interest and Ld. CIT (A) without considering dismissed the Appeal And Ex-Parte law order passed without considering all the three Grounds is Bad in Law.”
3. The matter was called for hearing on 22.02.2022, none had appeared on behalf of the assessee. The record shows on last date of hearing 3rd January, 2022 , also non-appeared for the assessee and notices were issued by RPAD. The same has been received un-served with the report “left without address”.
4. In the light of provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 as for non-appearance of appellant, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent so Ld. Sr. DR was heard on merits who justified the order of Ld. AO and Ld. FAA.
5. The brief facts are assessee had filed a return of income of Rs. 29,93,063/-. The total income of assessee comprised of income from capital gain. The case was selected in scrutiny to examine large deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act. On notices being issued to the assesee, the AR was asked to produce the bills of the cost of improvement/ construction of the property sold by the assessee. The same were furnished, however, the Ld. Assessing Officer telephonically contacted the parties who had issued the bill to verify the genuineness of the bills and as the parties told the Ld. AO that the bills have not been issued by them and they even do not know the assessee and have never worked with assessee. The bills of total aggregate Rs. 17,21,940/-were treated as bogus and the cost of construction was restricted to Rs. 7,78,060/-. Indexed cost of construction was calculated and based on that the Ld. AO added back the disallowed cost of construction to the capital gains declared by the assessee.
5.1 It can be observed from the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority that the assessee had raised the grounds of appeal submitting that Ld. AO had disbelieved the evidence of improvement in building by contractors and the Ld. AO had not confronted the assessee.
6. Giving a thoughtful consideration to the record, the Bench is of considered opinion that a presumption of truth is attached to the record of proceedings conducted by public authorities as reflected in their orders though the same is rebuttal. The assessee had the opportunity to rebut the findings of Ld. Assessing officer with regard to denial of the parties, who allegedly had issued bills. However, the assessee by his non-appearance failed to rebut the observations and findings of the AO by any evidence, before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Rather non-appearance gives rise to presumption that assessee had nothing to rebut to the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer. That being so there is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
Order pronounced and signed in open court on this day of 31st March, 2022.
