BINA RAJU RAMAIYA,MAHARASTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 32(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 15.05.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2012-13.

None appeared on behalf of assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. From the records I noticed that on the previous occasions assessee had sought adjournment by moving application. Today is the sixth opportunity but 2 Bina Raju Ramaiya, Mumbai neither the assessee appeared nor any application for seeking adjournment has been filed which shows that assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal. On the other hand 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.

As per the facts of the present case, assessment under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the income tax Act was framed, as the assessee failed to respond to the notices served upon him, thereby making addition under section 69 and 69 A of the income tax Act.

Thereafter, the appeal filed by the assessee was also dismissed on account of the fact that assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and failed to file any details/information with regard to additions made by the AO.

After hearing DR and perusal of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, I found that assessee had failed to file details/documents/information as called for by the revenue authorities from time to time. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was rejected and the additions made by the AO were upheld.

Even before me, the assessee has not appeared and has not filed any documentary evidences in support of the grounds raised by him. Therefore, while relying upon the provisions of section 114 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872, I draw adverse inference to the effect that had that documents which were called for from the assessee been produced, then it would have gone against the interest of the assessee. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, and while drawing the adverse inference, I uphold the action of the AO and Ld. CIT(A).

Moreover, nothing has been placed before me in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by the revenue authorities. Therefore I have no other option except to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. .Order pronounced in the open court on 28.01.2025. (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 28/01/2025 KRK, PS 4 Bina Raju Ramaiya, Mumbai आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु"बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.