Bhupinder Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-22(1), New Delhi

ITA 704/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9832 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 234B; 250

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 704/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 704/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhupinder Singh, D-1010, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065. PAN- AANPS5466P Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-22(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Kanav bali, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2022 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)-42, New Delhi, dated 26.10.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 2 ITA no. 704/Del/2019 “1) That the impugned order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income tax Act 1961 is bad in law and needs to be set-aside. 2) That the impugned order u/s 250 is not sustainable under the law and needs to be set aside. 3) That the ‘Reason to belief’ as recorded by the assessing authority prior to the issuance of notice u/s 148 is insufficient and without any proper investigation. 4) That the provision of section 2(22)€ is wrongly applied in this case without considering the facts of the case. 5) That the amount considered as accumulated profit is wrong and needs to be set aside. 6) That Ld. AA illegally charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, which is illegal.” 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that no one has been attending the proceedings despite various notices issued by the Registry. The notices sent by speed post have been returned back with the remark “no such person”. The assessee has also not provided any new address, if any. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee. 3. It is noticed that the Registry has reported the following defects in filing of the appeal: “1. Respondent address wrongly filled in. 2. Appeal fee not filed in minor head 300. 3. Assessment order is incomplete.” 3 ITA no. 704/Del/2019 4. The assessee has not removed the defects. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee, being defective, is herby dismissed. 5. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 25.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI