IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 270/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT            ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh 
 Ajmani, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ACA COMMERCE and INSURANCE AGENTS 
 . 
 PVT LTD          ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    24.04.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Having heard counsel for the appellant, we do not see any reason to 
 interfere with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 
 Costs of `25,000/- has been imposed on the respondent-assessee for the 
 lapses on their part. 
 . 
 The assessee had filed a return declaring income of `1,00,858/- for 
 the assessment year 2007-08.   The notice dated 20.11.2009 does not show 
 that the assessee had not appeared in the earlier proceedings.  It is 
 apparent that the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply and 
 the documents/explanation furnished by the assessee.  In response to the 
 notice dated 20.11.2009, a reply was sent by registered post and was 
 received by Assessing Officer on 5.12.2009.  The Assessing Officer did 
 not examine the said reply on the ground that it was not signed by the 
 director of the respondent company but by the accountant.  There is a 
 dispute whether or not the assessee or its authorized representative had 
 appeared before the Assessing Officer on 9.12.2009.  Thereafter, ex-parte 
 assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was passed on 14.12.2009 
 making addition of more than `3,12,00,000/-. 
 . 
 2.  In the appeal before CIT (Appeals) the assessee had filed an 
 application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 but the same was 
 rejected.   CIT(Appeals) has mentioned that the Assessing Officer has 
 stated  in the remand report that if the additional evidence as filed by 
 the assessee was taken into consideration, the Revenue had no case at 
 all. 
 . 
 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we do not think any 
 substantial question of law arises for consideration.  Of course, in case 
 the assessee does not co-operate, it will be open to the Assessing 
 Officer to proceed in accordance with law.  The appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 APRIL 24, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 1 
 . 
 . 
 .