Case Number: ITA 674/DEL/2019
Appellant: Nikhil Luthra, B-9, First Floor, DLF, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Faridabad-121003
Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Faridabad
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Result: Appeal Dismissed
Case Filed On: 2019-01-31
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2019-07-09
Pronounced On: 2019-07-09
Nikhil Luthra, the appellant, is engaged in job work and embroidery work on clothes under the business name M/s. Antex Fashion, located in DLF Industrial Area, Faridabad. He filed his return of income on 28.03.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.16,87,510/-. The Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(1), Faridabad, completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 17.10.2017, determining the total income of the appellant at Rs.34,18,640/-. This included various additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer made several additions to the appellant’s income, which Nikhil Luthra contested. The additions were:
The appellant challenged these additions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Faridabad. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the assessment order on account of the appellant’s failure to substantiate non-service of notice under section 143(2). However, the CIT(A) granted part relief by deleting some of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Dissatisfied with the partial relief, the appellant appealed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The case was heard by the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi, with Shri R. K. Panda, Accountant Member, presiding. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, and the notice sent by the registry through RPAD was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks “Left”. Since the appellant had not informed the tribunal of any change of address, the tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal based on the material available on record and after hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (DR), Shri S. L. Anuragi.
The ITAT considered the arguments and evidence presented. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had sustained the addition of Rs.2,61,745/- on account of mismatch in the 26AS statement and Rs.13,97,735/- on account of bogus sundry creditors. The ITAT found no reason to take a contrary view to that of the CIT(A) regarding these additions. The tribunal also dismissed the ground raised by the appellant concerning the validity of the assessment due to the unsigned notice issued under section 143(2), as this ground was not raised before the CIT(A).
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by Nikhil Luthra. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. This case underscores the importance of proper compliance with tax notices and the necessity of presenting relevant evidence during appellate proceedings.
Source: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches ‘SMC’, New Delhi
Disclaimer: This article provides an overview of the case and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. For detailed information, readers are encouraged to refer to the official case documents and consult with a qualified legal professional.
Nikhil Luthra vs ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad: Why the Case Was Filed and Its Outcome
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