REKHA RAMANAND YADAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and the Tribunal itself, with no evidence presented. The AO and CIT(A) acted within the bounds of law in treating unexplained depositions as turnover. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The assessee did not appear before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal, and provided no documentary evidence to substantiate their case.
What were the issues?
Whether the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed due to non-appearance and lack of evidence before all authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 24.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called repeatedly even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
2 Rekha Ramanand Yadav, Mumbai
On going through the records it is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before both the authorities i.e AO and Ld. CIT(A), no documentary evidences have been placed on record in order to substantiate its case. Even before the Tribunal no submissions or documentary evidences have been filed to substantiate the grounds raised. Therefore, I have left with no other option except to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. Even otherwise after having gone through the detailed order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), I noticed that the AO has acted within the bounds of law in treating unexplained depositions as the turnover of the assessee. Since nothing has been placed on record to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by the revenue authorities, therefore I see no reason to interfere or to deviate from the findings so recorded. Therefore grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
