Peartree Enterprises P.Ltd, Delhi V. DCIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

ITA 5694/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2950 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I. T. A. No. 5694/ Del / 2017 ( नधा रण वष / As s es s ment Yea r : 2012-13) P e a tr ee E n te rp ri s es P . L t d. C- 4/ 1 4 2, S a fd a r j u n g D ev el op m e nt A r ea D e l hi-1 1 0 01 9 बनाम/ V s . D CI T C ir cl e – 1 9 (2 ) N e w D e l hi थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./P A N /G IR N o . A A C C P8 7 5 9 Q (अपीलाथ /Appellant) . . ( यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : None यथ क ओर से / Respondent by : Sh. Shyam Manohar Singh, SR. DR स ु नवाई क तार ख / D a t e o f H e a r i ng 05.05.2022 घोषणा क तार ख /D a te o f P r o n o u nc e me n t 05.05.2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: T he c a pt io ne d a p p ea l ha s b e e n f i l e d at t h e i n s ta nc e o f t h e a s s es s e e ag a i ns t t he o r de r o f th e Co mm i s s i on er o f In c o m e T a x (A p pe a l s ) -1 6, N ew D e lh i ( ‘ CI T(A ) ’ i n s ho rt ), da t ed 03. 04 . 2 01 7 c on c e r n i n g A Y 2 012 -1 3. 2. Wh en t h e m at t er w as ca l le d for he a r i n g, no ne a p pea re d f or t h e a s s es s e e. It i s s e e n fro m t he a pp e a l re c ord s t ha t se ve r a l op por t u n i t i es ha v e b e en g i v e n t o t he a s se s s e e t o de fe n d i t s c a s e b u t w i t ho u t a n y a va il . A c c o r di n gl y , w e ar e c o ns t ra i nt t o pr o ce e d e xp ar t e i n t h e a bs e n ce o f t he as s e s s ee . 3. O n p e ru s a l o f t he f i rs t a p p el l a t e or d e r , i t i s obs e r ve d t ha t t h e a s s es s e e has fa i l e d t o a p pe a r b e for e t he CI T (A ) a nd th e ma t t e r w as pr o c e e d e d ex pa rt e. 4. T he i s s ue in vo l v e s a dd it i o n o f R s . 7 7, 44, 66 1/ - t o th e re t urn e d i nc o me as d is a l l o w a nc e o f ca pi t a l ex p e nd i t u r e . 5. It i s s e e n t h at th e C IT (A ) h as r e j e c t e d t he c l a im o f th e a s s es s e e by fo l l o w in g re as o n s : - “I have considered the issue of additional evidence as well as the report of the Assessing Officer and I agree with the Assessing Officer that the appellant was given, enough opportunities to use the evidence before him. The appellant has not been able to establish that it was prevented from sufficient cause to produce these bills before the Assessing Officer. The appellant cannot be allowed to choose the forum at which it wants to get its assessment done. The appellant cannot, without any plausible reason, by pass the Assessing Officer and expect the appellate authority to do the spade work in the limited time. Such practice has to be nipped in the bud. Consequently, the petition of the appellant under Rule 46A for consideration of additional evidence is rejected. Since the appellant have not submitted the bills of machine, repairs and maintenance before the Assessing Officer, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer. Consequently the disallowance of Rs.73,44,661/- made by the Assessing Officer under the head machinery running maintenance is sustained.’’ 6. T he C I T( A ) a p pe a r s t o ha v e ad dre s s ed t he fa ct ua l ma tr ix o n t h e ba s i s o f ma t e r i a l av a i l ab le o n re c or d. In a bs e n c e of a ny c ont ra ry de mo ns t ra ti on t o t h e p r oc es s o f r ea s o n i ng a d o p t ed by t he CI T (A ) a nd t he i n t he a bs e nc e o f a n y do c u me nt a ry e vi de nc es m ade a va i l a b l e be fo r e us t o co rr o bor a t e th e cl a i m o f t he a ss e s s e e, w e de c l i n e t o i nt er fe r e w i t h t h e o r de r o f t h e CI T (A ). 7. In th e re s ul t , t he ap pe a l o f t h e as s e s s ee is d ismis s e d e x p ar te. Sd/ - Sd/- (SAKTIJI T DEY) (PR ADIP K UM AR K EDI A) JUDI CI AL M EM BER ACCOUN TANT M EM BER Dated:05/05/2022 *Neha, Sr. Private Secretary Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2022