Anil Sharma, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-30(5), New Delhi

ITA 336/DEL/2020

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Anil Sharma against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 1997-98. The primary issue in the appeal was the addition of Rs. 3,51,234 to the assessee's income, which was not disclosed in the return of income but was reflected in Form No. 16A. The Income Tax Officer had initially added this amount following a re-assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which was contested by Sharma. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition, leading to this appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the assessee and lack of any new material to challenge the CIT(Appeals)'s decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112950 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2022
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 4623/Del/2000, ITA No. 4660/Del/2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 iTA No. 336/Del/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 336/DEL/2020____ Assessment Year: 1997-98 Anil Sharma, 4306, Sector B-5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN- AAZSPS5510J Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-30(5), New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR Date of hearing 08.12.2022 Date of pronouncement 15.12.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi, dated 24.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) 31, New Delhi has erred by not deleting the addition of Rs. 3,51,234/-” 2 iTA No. 336/Del/2020 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that no one has been attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee since 15.04.2021. Various notices of hearing sent to the assessee at the address provided in form no. 36 have been returned unserved with the postal remarks “Addressee left without address” or “No such person in this address”. The assessee has not provided any other address to the Registry. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material available on record. 3. This is second round of litigation. In the earlier round the matter was remitted to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) in ITA no. 4623/Del/2000 dated 23.01.2006. The learned CIT(Appeals) vide impugned order has sustained the addition of Rs. 3,51,234/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) has given a finding of fact. There is no material available on record to contradict the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals). Therefore, he submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned DR and gone through the material available on record. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has given a finding of fact by observing as 3 iTA No. 336/Del/2020 under: “4.1. From the grounds of appeal, it is clear that only dispute under consideration is the addition of Rs. 3,51,234/- being the contract receipts as per Form No. 16A not disclosed in the return of income. As is evident from the submission of Ld, AR and remand report of the AO that after completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) dated 30.03.2000, the assessment was re- opened u/s 148 and consequential re-assessment was also completed vide order dated 30.03.2005 on total income of Rs. 3,11,42,360/-. It may be noted that original assessment was completed on total income of Rs. 11,42,360/- and hence the assessment u/s 148/143(3) basically was completed after making further addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- being the export sales. This addition was also deleted by the CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi vide order dated 27.09.2005 and the appeal filed against this order by the department before Hon'ble ITAT also stands decided vide order dated 31.12.2007 contained in ITA No. 4660/Del/2005 wherein the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- as income from M/s Amity International has been set aside to the file of CIT(A) for re- adjudication. This set aside appeal as per AO is also pending with the concerned CIT(A). 4.2. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the present appeal arising from the order of Hon'ble ITAT dated 23.01.2006 pertaining to addition of Rs. 3,51,234/- is separate and independent. The AO in the assessment order and in earlier remand report had very clearly stated that the receipts of Rs. 3,51,234/- were not found credited anywhere. Since the appellant has not also furnished any documentary evidences before me that the receipts of Rs. 3,51,234/- as per Form No. 16A were disclosed in the return of income, the addition made by the AO is justified. Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised in this regard are dismissed.” 6. The above finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) and the same is affirmed. 4 iTA No. 336/Del/2020 7. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 15 th December, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI