2023 (2) TMI 747 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed in Tax Dispute: Section 147 Challenge & Grounds Rejected

The appeal challenging the Assessing Officer's actions under section 147, including the addition made under section 69C, and the right to add further ... Defective memorandum of appeal - change of name of appellant - dismissal in limine for non-compliance - hearing in absence of appellant and disposal on recordsDefective memorandum of appeal - change of name of appellant - dismissal in limine for non-compliance - Appeal dismissed in limine because Form No.36 recorded the appellant's name as 'Lal Mahal Ltd.' while the company had changed its name to 'Nutrionex Manufactures Ltd.' and no step was taken to rectify the defect. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that the records show the name in Form No.36 as 'Lal Mahal Ltd.' but a letter dated 07.09.2022 records that the company is now known as 'Nutrionex Manufactures Ltd.' No amendment or rectification was undertaken to correct the name in the appeal records. Under these circumstances the appeal was held to be defective for non-compliance and, consequently, liable to be dismissed in limine. The Tribunal treated the unrectified discrepancy in the appellant's name as a substantial defect affecting maintainability of the appeal and dismissed the appeal on that ground. [Paras 6, 7]Appeal dismissed in limine for being defective due to unrectified change of name of the appellant in Form No.36.Hearing in absence of appellant and disposal on records - Proceedings were conducted and the appeal disposed of in the absence of the appellant after notice service attempts failed and the appellant did not attend hearings. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that no one attended on behalf of the assessee and that there had been no attendance since 20.10.2021. Notices of hearing sent by speed post were returned unserved with the remark 'refused'. Given the continued non-attendance and failure of service, the appeal was taken up and disposed of in the assessee's absence, relying on written submissions and the material on record. [Paras 2]Appeal taken up and disposed of in the absence of the appellant on the basis of written submissions and material on record.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as defective because the appellant's change of name was not reflected or rectified in the appeal records; the appeal was also heard and disposed of in the appellant's absence after service attempts failed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the action taken by the Assessing Officer under section 1472. Addition made under section 69C3. Right to add further grounds of appeal during appeal proceedings4. Compliance with the first proviso to section 147 regarding failure to disclose all material facts5. Validity of initiation of action under section 147 and service of notice under section 1486. Unexplained expenses under section 69C7. Consideration of additional grounds of appealAnalysis:1. The appeal challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.08.2018, disputing the action taken by the Assessing Officer under section 147. The appellant contended that the AO's actions were incorrect and unjustified. The grounds of appeal included objections to the dismissal of the appeal, the validity of the addition made under section 69C, and the confirmation of such addition. The appellant also raised concerns regarding the inability to add further grounds of appeal during the proceedings and the reliance on a statement made without the opportunity for cross-examination.2. The appellant argued that the action under section 147 was illegal and bad in law due to the failure to disclose all material facts as required by the first proviso to section 147. The appellant contended that the conditions necessary for initiating action under section 147 were not satisfied, challenging the legality of the AO's actions.3. Another issue raised was the legality of the initiation of action under section 147 and the service of notice under section 148. The appellant asserted that there was no valid issue and valid service of notice under section 148, questioning the legality of the proceedings.4. The appellant further contested the initiation of action under section 147 and the issuance of notice under section 148, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment year mentioned in the notice and the actual assessment year for which action was intended. The appellant argued that such discrepancies rendered the actions illegal and bad in law.5. Regarding unexplained expenses under section 69C, the appellant objected to the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the expenses, despite the purchases being recorded in the audited books of account and the stock register. The appellant argued that the purchases were legitimate and should not have been treated as unexplained expenses.6. The appellant disputed the CIT(A)'s findings that purchases were not made from a specific company, despite the audited books of account showing no discrepancies and the acceptance of book results. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the evidence supporting the purchases.7. Lastly, the appellant raised concerns about the consideration of additional grounds of appeal, arguing that the CIT(A) unjustly rejected the additional grounds by claiming they could not be filed at that stage. The appellant challenged this decision, seeking the consideration of the additional grounds.In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of the assessee during the proceedings, leading to the disposal of the case based on written submissions and available records.