Amrapali Biotech India Pvt Ltd, Ghaziabad V. ACIT Central Circle-2, New Delhi

ITA 6056/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9602 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 37; 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6056 & 6057/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Amrapali Biotech India Pvt. Ltd., H-5, 3/10, Vaishali, Ghaziabad-201 010 PAN : AAGCA 5703 P Vs. ACIT Central Circle – 2 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 30.09.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 28.02.2019 (being quantum appeal) & 08.05.2019 (being penalty appeal) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 2 3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of food processing and trading of food grains. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 01.10.2015 declaring loss of Rs.13,63,67,756/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and, thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2017 and the total loss was determined at Rs.6,11,72,361/- by making various disallowances / additions. On the aforesaid disallowance made by AO, AO vide order passed u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act vide order dated 08.05.2019 levied penalty of Rs. 9,68,64,615/-. 4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by AO in quantum and penalty, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide orders dated 28.02.2019 and 08.05.2019 upheld the additions as well as penalty. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: ITA No.6056/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 “i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,07,07,298/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of expenses. iii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.4,44,88,097/- made by AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3 iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in making enhancement/addition of Rs.20,27,16,335/- on account of alleged bogus purchase. v. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in making enhancement /addition of Rs.49,40,145/- on account of scrap sales. vi. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in making enhancement/addition of Rs.1,09,71,138/- on account of enhancement of sales. vii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in making enhancement /addition of Rs.1,42,96,302/- on account of disallowance u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. viii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the various additions/enhancement made by CIT(A) are bad in law and without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be deleted. ix. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice . The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter/modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” ITA No.6057/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 “i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order passed by CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4 ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is vague, erroneous and contrary to the provision of law. iii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in imposing penalty of Rs.9,68,64,615/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty of Rs.9,68,64,615/- imposed by the CIT(A) is erroneous, contrary to the provision of law and without jurisdiction and therefore, the penalty of Rs.9,68,64,615/- imposed by CIT(A) is liable to be cancelled. v. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order passed by CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter/modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 5. The case file reveals that the matter was earlier listed twice but due to non appearance from the side of the assessee, the matter was adjourned to 28 th Sep 2022. At the time of last hearing i.e. on 28.09.2022, the Registry was also directed to place on record the report about the service of notice of hearing and the hearing was adjourned to 29.09.2022. On 29.09.2022 the Registry has placed on record the track consignment report downloaded from the site of Indian Post which showed that the notice was returned unclaimed. On 29.09.2022 also none appeared on behalf 5 of the assessee nor any application was filed seeking adjournment of the appeal. 6. Preferring an appeal does not mean mere formally filing it but also taking all the steps to effectively pursue the appeal. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of the assessee, we don’t find any reason to keep the matter pending before us. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeals ex parte qua the assessee, after considering the submissions of Learned DR and the material on record. 7. Before us, Learned DR pointed to the table noted by the AO in the assessment order which showed that various notices were issued to the assessee to explain and furnish the details as listed in the notice but no details were furnished by the assessee. AO, therefore, for the reasons noted in the order made the additions/ disallowances. He submitted that even before CIT(A) there was no appearance from the side of assessee. CIT(A), thereafter, for the reasons noted in the order has upheld the additions and the penalty levied by AO. He submitted that before the Tribunal also assessee has not appeared which shows the callous approach of the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that order of CIT(A) be upheld. 8. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material 6 available on record. We find that despite various opportunities granted by the lower authorities the assessee has not appeared before them. The conduct of the assessee in not appearing before the lower authorities and the Tribunal shows the negligent approach of the assessee. The fact that the assessee has not appeared before the lower authorities and has also not appeared before the Tribunal despite various opportunities granted to the assessee shows that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by him. Before us, assessee has not placed any material to support its contention nor has pointed to any fallacy in the findings of lower authorities. In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus uphold the orders of CIT(A). 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 30.09.2022 PY* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI