MADHUVAN RESTAURANT & BAR ,RANGA REDDY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prashanth Pinisetty

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 568/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Madhuvan Restaurant & Bar, vs. Income-tax Officer, Ranga Reddy District. Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad. PAN – AAUFM 5259 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Satya Prashanth Pinisetty Date of hearing : 02-08-2019 Date of pronouncement : 09-08-2019 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad, dated 19/09/2018 for AY 2013-14. 2. When this appeal was posted for hearing on 02/08/2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any adjournment letter. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhttachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 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 by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise appeal No. 62 of 2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss this appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

2 ITA No. 568 /Hyd/2019 Madhuvan Restaurant & Bar, RR Dist. 3. Even on merits, the assessee, filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 13/09/2015 declaring total income at (-) Rs. 9,55,708/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices were issued. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 27/12/2017 by estimating the income from wines @ 5% of Rs. 5,18,289/- and income from restaurant @ 25% of Rs. 7,63,333/- and assessed the total income at Rs. 12,81,622/-. The CIT(A) directed the AO to estimate the income @ 3% on cost of the stock put for sale. With regard to addition of 25% of expenditure relating to restaurant amounting to Rs. 7,63,333/-, confirmed the same by observing that the assessee has failed to produce bills/vouchers neither before the AO nor before him.

Since, there is no Representation from the assessee and the findings of the CIT(A) are uncontroverted, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in the appeal under consideration and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 9th August, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 9th August, 2019. kv Copy to:- 1) Madhuvan Restaurant and Bar, H.No. 8-58/311, G1, Gateway Complex, Coco cola X Road, Bachupally, R.R. District – 500 090 2) ITO, Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A) – 1, Hyderabad. 4) Pr. CIT - 1, Hyd. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File

MADHUVAN RESTAURANT & BAR ,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD