SURYA REAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 608/AHD/2023

AI Insights

Surya Real Infra Private Limited, engaged in real estate development, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, which had dismissed their earlier appeal. The original assessment for the year 2012-13 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, significantly increasing the declared income from Rs. 90,00,340 to Rs. 4,27,82,400. The Tribunal noted multiple procedural lapses by the assessee, including failure to provide necessary documents and explanations for delays in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not take the opportunity to present its case effectively, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25326 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIGNESH DAS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 608/Ahd/2023 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Surya Real Infra Private Limited Survey No.641, Suryan Logeco Homes, 1-4 Gandhi Smuruti Co.op. H. Soc., Mumatpura, Makarba, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380051 बनाम/ Vs. The DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AALCS8214J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : None Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 05/11/2024 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 23.11.2022 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012- 13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private company engaged in real estate development business. The return of income for A.Y.2012-13 was filed on 26.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.90,00,340/-. The case was selected ITA No. 608/Ahd/2023 [Surya Real Infra Private Limited. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 27.03.2015 at total income of Rs.4,27,82,400/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which has been decided vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. The assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: “1. We have already given for the adjournment for submission of our documents but the adjournment was not granted and due to Tax Audit due date and Diwali Festivals we were unable to furnish the response and the appellate order was passed 2. Submission made on 13th December that has not been considered while passing AO, the said issue was considered in vague manner by the AO in remand report. 3. Principal of Natural justice was not followed and opportunity of being heard was not given.” 5. The registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 197 days by the assessee in filing of this appeal. The defect was communicated to the assesse on 07.08.2023. However, the assessee has neither given any reason for delay in filing of the present appeal in Form No. 36 nor filed any explanation in this regard. In fact, the authorization of Shri Arpan Shah, CA, who sought adjournments on behalf of the assessee in the course of this proceeding on various dates, is also not available on record and this defect was also not rectified. The defects pointed out by the Registry as well as in the course of hearings have not been ITA No. 608/Ahd/2023 [Surya Real Infra Private Limited. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 – rectified in spite of numerous opportunities as provided. In the absence of any explanation for the delay in filing of this appeal, the delay cannot be condoned and the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for this reason alone. 6. It is further noticed that no compliance was made by the assessee in response to the various notices issued for the hearing of this appeal. The status of various opportunities provided to the assessee and response of the assessee is tabulated below: Date of Hearing Status of compliance 13/02/2024 No compliance by the assessee 11/03/2024 None appears for the assessee 16/04/2024 Assessee requests for adjournment, adjourned 24th Aprial, 2024 24/04/2024 Adjourned to 15th May, 2024 at the request of the assessee 15/05/2024 Adjourned to 20th June, 2024 at the request of the assessee 20/06/2024 No compliance by the assessee 30/07/2024 No compliance by the assessee 07/10/2024 No compliance by the assessee 09/10/2024 Adjourned to 22nd October, 2024 on request of the assessee 22/10/2024 No compliance by the assessee It is, thus, noticed that out of 10 effective opportunities provided to the assessee the matter was adjourned on 4 occasions at the written request of the assessee and there was no compliance at all on other six occasions. Thus no effective compliance was made by the assessee on any of the dates. The assessee was thus allowed ample opportunities to present its case and adjournments were also allowed as and when sought. But, in spite of numerous opportunities as provided the assessee has not made any submission. From the conduct of the assessee it is evident that ITA No. 608/Ahd/2023 [Surya Real Infra Private Limited. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – the assessee is not at all serious in pursuing the appeal filed by it. We have, therefore, no option but to decide the matter ex- parte. 7. We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR, Shri Rignesh Das. He explained that in the course of assessment, the AO had made the addition for the reason that the assessee did not explain the sharp decline in net profit during the year. Further, in respect of fresh loan creditor, neither any details were produced nor any confirmation of the creditor was filed to establish the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The Ld. Sr. DR explained that the AO had also made enquiry in respect of one of the sundry creditor who had denied having made any transaction with the assessee. In view of this adverse finding and failure on the part of the assessee to explain the decline in profit during the year, the AO had rejected the accounts of the assessee and the net profit was estimated by the AO @10.36% i.e. the rate as disclosed by the assessee itself in the preceding year. Further, the addition in respect of fresh unsecured loan was also made. The Ld. Sr. DR explained that in the course of appeal proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as 11 opportunities over a period of 7 years, but no compliance was made by the assessee on any occasion. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. We have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the Ld. Sr. DR. The only grievance of the assessee is that there was violation of principle of natural justice by the Ld. CIT(A). We do not find any merit in the grounds as taken by the assessee. ITA No. 608/Ahd/2023 [Surya Real Infra Private Limited. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 – The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed 11 opportunities but no compliance was made by the assessee on any of the dates. In the course of present appeal as well, the assessee has not made any compliance nor brought any material on record to controvert the findings of the AO. In fact, the assessee has also not explained the delay in filing of this appeal. On merits also the assessee has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings of the AO in respect of decline in net profit during the year as well as in support of fresh loans taken during the year. In the absence of any explanation for decline in net profit during the year, the AO had estimated the profit @10.36 which was the rate disclosed by the assessee in the preceding year, which is found to be reasonable. Further, the assessee has also not brought any evidence on record to establish the identity & creditworthiness of the loan creditors and to establish the genuineness of transaction either before the Ld. CIT(A) or in the course of present proceeding. Therefore, we don’t find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO. In view of these facts, we do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced on 05/11/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 05/11/2024 S. K. SINHA on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 19.12.2019Other Member…………………Date on which the approved draft comes to "