Supershakti Cooking Oil Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 24(4), New Delhi

ITA 750/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7791 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68; 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 750/Del/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 750/DEL/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s Supershakti Cooking Oil Pvt. Ltd., B-144, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015. PAN- AAJCS0280N Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-24(4), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.04.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.04.2024 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)-8, New Delhi, dated 09.12.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 on the ground that buyers have not complied with notices issued 133(6) under section without appreciating that the seller cannot be penalized for non-compliance on the part of the buyer 2 ITA No. 750/Del/2020 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of sale proceeds of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 received from buyer without appreciating that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the sum received on account of sale proceeds and it is restricted to the sum introduced in books of accounts as credit 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 on the ground that buyers have not complied with notices issued 133(6) under section without appreciating that the request of the assessee that he may be given chance to pursue the buyer for compliance and as thus violated the principle of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 11,40,000 under section 68 by treating the amount realized by way of sale proceed as ingenuine without appreciating the fact that there is no infirmity in the trading section or books of accounts which stand accepted under section 145. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by conforming addition on the basis of factually incorrect observation that has not contested before the Ld. AO that assessment cannot be framed against AO that assessment cannot be framed against nonexistent entity 6. Any other ground of appeal which is deemed fit at the time of submission of statement of facts and other details.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. I have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record. 3. It transpires from the records that vide order-sheet entry dated 9.12.2021 it is recorded that learned counsel of the assessee Shri Jagdish Ajmani, CA had intimated that the company has been struck off from the records of the ROC. Thereafter, the Revenue had sought time to ascertain the status of the company, as it was intimated that Revenue had filed an application. It is further transpired from 3 ITA No. 750/Del/2020 the record that no one has been attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee since 5.9.2022. On 17.5.2023 it was intimated by learned DR that application of the Revenue was still pending. 3.1 Looking to the facts of the present case, appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex parte to the assessee, as the assessee has failed to file any supporting evidence in respect of the grounds taken against the impugned order. Further, no one has represented on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of the relevant material, we do not see any infirmity into the order of the learned CIT(A). Same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 18 th April, 2024. 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