Case Number: ITA 1157/DEL/2020
Appellant: Krishan Kumar, Aligarh
Respondent: ITO Ward-3(2), Bulandshahr
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Result: Appeal dismissed, addition of Rs. 12,79,600 upheld
Case Filed On: 2020-06-10
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-03-31
Pronounced On: 2022-03-31
The case involves Krishan Kumar (the appellant), appealing against the order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward-3(2), Bulandshahr, for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 12,79,600 made by the ITO, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, confirming the addition.
The appellant, Krishan Kumar, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 13.05.2019. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs. 12,79,600 made by the ITO based on the appellant’s share in the purchase of immovable property. The ITO had reopened the case after receiving AIR information regarding the property purchase, but the appellant failed to respond to the notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, leading to an ex parte assessment.
The appellant did not appear for the hearing before the ITAT, and notices sent by the Registry were returned with the remark that the house was locked. The appellant also did not inform the Tribunal of any change of address. As a result, the ITAT decided to proceed with the case based on the available records and the arguments presented by the Departmental Representative (DR).
The DR argued that the CIT(A) had provided justified reasons for dismissing the appeal and upholding the addition made by the ITO. The ITO had determined the total income of the appellant at Rs. 12,79,600, representing his share in the immovable property purchase, due to the appellant’s failure to provide any explanation or documentation to the contrary.
The ITAT reviewed the material on record and the arguments presented by the DR. It noted that the CIT(A) had given justified reasons for upholding the reassessment and the addition made by the ITO. The appellant had not provided any material evidence or arguments to challenge the CIT(A)’s decision.
The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A) had acted correctly in dismissing the appeal and upholding the addition of Rs. 12,79,600. The Tribunal found no reason to take a contrary view and dismissed the appeal filed by Krishan Kumar.
Implications: This case underscores the importance of responding to notices and providing necessary documentation during tax assessment proceedings. The decision highlights the need for taxpayers to actively participate in the process to avoid adverse outcomes.
Krishan Kumar vs. ITO Ward-3(2), Bulandshahr – ITA 1157/DEL/2020: Assessment Year 2009-10
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform