M/S PRIA CEPT (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC 2 (1) , MUMBAI

A perusal of the file shows that since the time appeal was listed for hearing for the first time on 19/07/2021, none has appeared to represent the assessee. The notice of hearing were repeatedly sent to the assessee through RPAD on the address mentioned in Form No.36 by the assessee. Some of the notices sent to the assessee were received back from the Postal Authorities with the remark “Left”. The assessee has not furnished revised Form No.36 giving correct/current address for serving of the notices It seems the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and has abandoned the same. Therefore, we proceed to decide this appeal with the assistance of ld.Departmental Representative and material available on record.

Shri R.A.Dhyani representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of CIT(A). The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee is recalcitrant. The assessee never appeared before Assessing Officer hence, the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass assessment order u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘ the Act’ ]. Even before CIT(A) the assessee was non-cooperative as is evident from the observations made in para-4 of the CIT(A) order. The ld.Departmental Representative prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) in confirming the additions made in assessment proceedings u/s. 144 of the Act. No material is available before us controverting the findings of CIT(A) on merits of the addition. In the absence of any contrary material we are constrained to uphold the findings of First Appellate Authority. Hence, the appeal by assessee is dismissed.