In a recent case before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi the assessee’s appeal was dismissed due to absence of representation in the appeals filed in previous assessment years. The appellant M/s Decent Agencies Pvt. Ltd, filed an appeal against ACIT, Delhi against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CITA). Appeal was filed by the assessee on 01.05.2023 and defect notice was issued on 02.05.2023 indicating the defects as well as it was noted that the appeal was filed with delay of 157 days. The assessee removed the defects vude letter, and the appeal was fixed for hearing. The appeal was fixed for hearing  on  28.12.2023, 20.03.2024, 09.04.2024, 12.06.2024, 19.06.2024 and 11.09.2024, after an adjournment on 11.10.2023. But during the aforesaid dates none appeared on behalf of assessee nor did request for adjournment. Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here

Several RAPD notices were issued to the assessee and all of them were returned unserved. Further the revenue revenue preferred an appeal, pursuant to the warrant of authorization issued by the Director of Income Tax, New Delhi. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of Income Tax Act was conducted on 23.07.2015 in different business resedential premises of Deepak Aggarwal, Mukesh Kumar, and others. The Investigation wing found that a group of entry operators were providing accomodation entries to benefeciaries. Based on the obtained incriminating matrials found during search, the AO concluded that the assessee was only a shell company operated and managed by Deepak Aggarwal for providing accomodation entries, in lieu of certain amount of commission. Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here  He determined various accomodation amount based on the commissions to the extend of Rs.210,39,771/-.

Out of this amount the AO had made protected assessment to the extend of 80% and substantive basis at 20% out of total commissions presumed to have earned by Deepak Aggarwal. AO had also made addition of Rs.1,68.31,816/- on protective basis and Rs.42,07,954/- on substantive basis in the hands of assessee. And also he had dosallowed certain bogus expenditure of Rs.7,56,059/- claimed by the assessee. Aggreived by this order assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) , after considering the submissions CIT(A) deleted the protective and substantive addition made by the AoO relating to the commission and sustained other additions. Aggreived by this revenue filed appeal. After considering the submissions of revenue and since the assessee chose to not pursue the case, the appeals were disposed of and decided that the protective additions and substantive additions were unwanted. Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here

The assessee then filed an appealṣṣ before ITAT.  The tribunal comprising Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member Rifaur Rahman observed that since the appeals filed by the assessee in other assessment years such as 2010-11 and 2013-14 with same issues are were exactly similar to the appeals filed in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and since there was no representation from the assessee, therefore the bench deemed it fit to dismiss the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by revenue in AY 2012-13 was allowed.