2019 (2) TMI 1583 - AT - Income Tax

Non-prosecution of appeal by assessee - HELD THAT - The assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals. It has been held in the case of B.N. Bhttachargee & Anr. 1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India 2009 (9) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd.. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D and in Late Tukojirao Holkar 1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT we dismiss these appeals of the assessee for want of prosecution. Scrutiny assessment - additions towards estimation of income on work in progress, unexplained creditors and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT - CIT-A deleted the additions towards estimation of income on work in progress and addition u/s 40(a)(ia). With reference to the addition of unexplained creditors CIT(A) directed the AO to examine the contention of the assessee with reference to unexplained income from three creditors and after ensuring that the confirmation letters from the creditors were filed and allow accordingly. AO gave consequential effect to CIT(A) s order on 18/02/2015 and recomputed the income at ₹ 2,39,62,500/- when the assessee failed to substantiate his claim by way submitting the confirmation letters from creditors. When the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the consequential order of AO vide order dated 09/03/2018, on the ground that the assessee has not discharged its onus by submitting the confirmation letters from the creditors - there is no Representation from the assessee and the findings of the CIT(A) are uncontroverted - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-appearance of the assessee during appeal hearings.
2. Dismissal of appeals for want of prosecution.
3. Merits of the case related to additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The appellant failed to appear on multiple occasions during the appeal process, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals.

2. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support the decision to dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution. Citing the case of B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., it was emphasized that merely filing an appeal is not sufficient; active pursuit is essential. The Tribunal also highlighted the inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution, as established by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India.

3. On the merits of the case, a survey operation was conducted at the assessee's business premises, leading to additions by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal by deleting certain additions but upheld others. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide confirmation letters from creditors to substantiate claims, resulting in the confirmation of the AO's consequential order by the CIT(A).

4. Despite the absence of representation from the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders as the findings remained uncontroverted. Consequently, both appeals by the assessee were dismissed.

5. The judgment was pronounced on 18th January 2019, emphasizing the importance of active participation and compliance during appeal proceedings to ensure a fair and just resolution.