Appeal Dismissal Due to Lack of Evidence and Failure to Update Address – Amit Oberoi vs ACIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi

Case Summary: Amit Oberoi vs ACIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi

Case Number: ITA 6066/DEL/2019
Appellant: Amit Oberoi, New Delhi
Respondent: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-71(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Case Filed On: 16th July 2019
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 18th April 2022
Pronounced On: 18th April 2022

Introduction

The case of Amit Oberoi vs ACIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi, pertains to an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding long-term capital gains from the sale of shares. The appeal was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) due to the appellant’s failure to provide sufficient evidence and update his address, leading to missed notices and an ex-parte decision.

Background of the Case

Amit Oberoi, a resident of New Delhi, filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11, declaring an income of Rs. 30,70,360/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer received information regarding the sale of shares by the appellant in M/s Lotus Technosoft Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 1,83,00,000/-. The AO noted that a portion of this amount, specifically Rs. 5,00,000/-, had not been disclosed by the appellant and added it to his income, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 35,70,360/-.

The appellant contested the addition and filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of cost of acquisition and indexation but upheld the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- out of the original Rs. 5,00,000/- as long-term capital gains. Dissatisfied with the CIT(A)’s decision, Amit Oberoi further appealed to the ITAT.

Proceedings Before the ITAT

The ITAT bench, consisting of Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member, heard the case. However, the appellant did not attend the hearing, and the notices sent by the Tribunal were returned by the postal department, indicating that the appellant was not residing at the given address. It was noted that the appellant had failed to provide his current address to the Tribunal’s registry, which resulted in the non-receipt of notices.

Given these circumstances, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte based on the available records and submissions made by the Senior Departmental Representative (DR), Shri Sanjay Kumar.

Key Grounds of Appeal and Tribunal’s Findings

1. Challenge to the Reopening of Assessment

The appellant argued that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was illegal and lacked jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this ground, as the appellant failed to provide any evidence to support the claim. The reopening was based on information regarding undisclosed income, which the AO had properly acted upon.

2. Transfer of Jurisdiction

The appellant contended that the transfer of jurisdiction from Ward 1(1), Noida, to Circle 71(1), New Delhi, was done without providing an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, noting that the appellant had not raised this issue before the CIT(A) and failed to present any evidence to support the claim.

3. Issuance of Notice Under Section 143(2)

The appellant argued that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the filing of the return of income in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal rejected this ground, citing that the records showed the notice under Section 143(2) was issued after the return was filed.

4. Addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- as Long-Term Capital Gains

The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- out of the Rs. 5,00,000/- originally added by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the evidence on record clearly supported the AO’s finding that the capital gains arose in the relevant assessment year. The appellant’s argument that the transfer of shares occurred in the previous year was not substantiated by any credible evidence.

Conclusion

The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by Amit Oberoi due to his failure to provide adequate evidence and his lack of cooperation in updating his address, leading to an ex-parte decision. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- as long-term capital gains, along with other findings by the lower authorities.

This case underscores the importance of timely communication with tax authorities and the necessity of keeping them informed of any changes in address or other contact details to ensure due process in legal proceedings.

Order Pronounced in Open Court: 18th April 2022

Judicial Member: Shri Kul Bharat

Assistant Registrar: ITAT, New Delhi

Appeal Dismissal Due to Lack of Evidence and Failure to Update Address – Amit Oberoi vs ACIT, Circle-71(1), New Delhi