Mi Webpro Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 4711/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9561 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(2); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4711/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 MI WEBPRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., VS. INCOME T AX OFFICER, 75/BACK SIDE, 2 ND FLOOR, SANT NAGAR, WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI (PAN:AAGCM0432M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-37, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A )J IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN SAW, FAI LING TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS AGAI NST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A] HAS ERRED IN FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 ARE BAD, BOTH IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED C1T(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF AN AMOUNT OF RS 44,33,105/-. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL ON 23.05.2019 . REGISTRY ISSUED RPAD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 25.09.2019. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILE D ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE BENCH ADJOURNED THE MATTER FOR 07. 01.2020 DIRECTED THE REGISTRY TO ISSUE RPAD NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36. AGAIN ON 07.01.2020, A SSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEAR NOR FILED ANY APPL ICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND AGAIN TO THE ASSES SEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36, THEREFORE, I AM DECIDING THE APPEAL EX PARTE ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. THE LEARNED DR STATED THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, NO LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. HE REQUESTED THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE REMAIN NON COOPERATIVE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE AS SESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO TWELVE TIMES WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODU CED IN PARA NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FINALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 22.12.2016. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS ALSO ISSU ED VARIOUS NOTICES OF 3 HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 35 BY SPEED POST AND ALSO THROUGH ITBA WHICH THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MENTIONED IN PARA NOS. 4 AND 5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND FINALLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AN D KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE ASSESSEE, I AGREE WI TH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT NO LENIENT VIEW MAY B E TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONDUCT OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07/01/2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 07/01/2020 SH COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES