Aastha Surgimed Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-1(2), New Delhi

ITA 9837/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1461 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK KAUSHIK; LIQUIDATOR
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS; Liquidation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9837/DEL/2019 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aastha Surgimed Limited, vs. ITO, Ward 1 (2), A-1/53, Local Shopping Centre, New Delhi. Paschim Vihar, Delhi – 110 062. (PAN : AAACA9960G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Alok Kaushik, Liquidator REVENUE BY : Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2024 Date of Order : 26.06.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 21.10.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT (A) is bad-in-law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) and the assessing officer erred in passing ex-parte order. 2 ITA No.9837/DEL/2019 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not providing proper opportunity to the appellant. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the various grounds of appeal on merit. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.50,39,407/- made by the assessing officer on account of increase in trade payable. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,32,764/- made by the assessing officer on account of depreciation. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,41,231/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on late payment of TDS. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.87,952/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on income tax. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.63,822/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on late deposit of service tax. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.7,54,543/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of amount written off during the year. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.10,951/- made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of donation expense. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.11,330/- made by 3 ITA No.9837/DEL/2019 the assessing officer on account of disallowance on interest paid on late deposit of VAT. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,46,550/- made by the assessing officer on account of deferred tax liability.” 3. In this case, in an ex-parte order, the AO computed the total income at Rs.67,09,050/- as against the income declared by the assessee in the income- tax return at Rs.1,10,500/-. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) in an ex-parte order confirmed the same. 5. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. It is noted that the appeal has been filed on 27.12.2019 by Director of the Company. At the outset, in this case, assessee was represented by Shri Alok Kaushik, Official Liquidator. Shri Alok Kaushik, Official Liquidator informed that the company has gone into liquidation by the order of the National Company Law Tribunal dated 23.02.2021. He further submitted that the company has gone into resolution process by order dated 01.08.2019. In this view of the matter, he submitted that the insolvency process has already been started and the appeal filed by the Director of the Company is subsequent to the said date. As such, he submitted that the appeal has been filed without any authority by the Director. He further 4 ITA No.9837/DEL/2019 submitted that as Liquidator, he has already taken into consideration Revenue’s demand in this case. Hence, he submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 7. Upon careful consideration, we note that the Official Liquidator has been appointed in this case. Furthermore, the appeal has been filed by the Director subsequent to the insolvency resolution process. The appeal has been filed by the Director of the Company who had no authority to file the appeal. We agree with the submissions of Official Liquidator, Shri Alok Kaushik that this appeal is liable to be dismissed being unauthorised. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 26 th day of June, 2024. Sd/- sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 26 th day of June, 2024 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-I, New Delhi 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.