MAYURI RESTAURANT AND BAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

When the appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 02/07/2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there is a request for adjournment of the case. Assessee has not rectified the defects pointed out by the Registry on 27/10/2017. Normally, defects should be rectified within 15 days of issue of defect memo. The case was posted on 09/04/2018 for rectification and even extended the time for rectification. Assessee has not rectified nor taken steps to represent the case before the Bench. 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-

Even on merits, it is observed that the assessee is a firm deriving income from business of Bar and Restaurant. It filed its Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,89,490/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to these notices, summons u/s 131 of the Act dt. 15.02.2016 and show cause notice dt. 10.03.2016 were issued to the partners Sri G.Ramana Reddy and Sri G.Ram Reddy to attend personally and furnish the information,. Since there was no compliance, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act estimating income from business @ 10% which works out to Rs. 29,59,048/- and unexplained cash credits in ICICI Bank at Rs. 50,85,915/- determining total income at Rs. 80,44,963/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO by observing that no evidence was led to prove the source of cash deposits in the bank accounts and mere averment without any evidence will not absolve the assessee from the tax liability. No books of account including cash book were produced before the undersigned and before the AO in support of his contention.

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.