"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.3706/Del/2018 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] HIM Restaurants Private Limited, 23/16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Or CA Chander Prakash, 207 Padma Tower II, 22 Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), New Delhi-110002 PAN-AACCH7035B Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM, This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 26.03.2018 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’) in appeal No.751/16-17/CIT(A)- 4, arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, ward 11(3), New Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee and notices have been repeatedly issued earlier, therefore, no more opportunity is justified. 3. On hearing the ld. DR, we find that disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer after rejection of books of accounts. The Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3706/Del/2018 has observed mismatch in the services reported in the service tax return and as declared in the Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer observed that in period of October, 2013 to March, 2014, the assessee had not shown any income from hall booking nor any loss for the period has been shown. The Assessing Officer has examined certain purchases made from ABR Foods & Snacks Pvt. Ltd. and equity of the ledger that audit report was found. The Assessing Officer has examined unexplained cash credit on the basis of unsecured loans, which were doubtful and lastly a disallowance on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and ESIC was made. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the rejection of books of accounts and results declared by assessee as the assessee had failed to produce books of account at all stages. Subsequent additions were also upheld except deleting the delayed deposit to PF and ESIC Contribution. 5. Now once, tax authorities have proceeded on the basis of rejection of books of account by assuming the same are not maintained, the nature of additions do not warrant any other inferences in the absence of any evidences or submissions to the contrary as the assessee has failed to appear. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee appear to have no substance. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- [KRINWANT SAHAY] [ANUBHAV SHARMA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.09.2025 Shekhar Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3706/Del/2018 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "