Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Thane [in short CIT(A)], in vide dated 28.02.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 31.12.2008 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
At the outset, it is noticed from the order of CIT(A) that the order of CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and assessee was provided opportunity of being heard but assessee could not avail due to the some reason or to the other. Now, none is 2 Oracle Entertainment (P) Ltd.; AY 06 -07 present from assessee’s side from last so many hearings but request for adjournment was placed before me that assessee has appointed one counsel Mr. Pradeep Sharma and asked for adjournment for two months.
When a query was put to the leaned Sr. Departmental Representative that this is an a ex-parte order and ultimately, this has to go back because the CIT(A) appeal has passed an ex-parte order in violation of principle of natural justice, even the order passed by the Assessing Officer is also same that the assessee could not produced the loan creditors for examination. In this case one unique fact is that the Tribunal has given specific finding in earlier round as noted by CIT(A) in Para 5.2 as under: - “5.2 The appellant also failed to produce credible documents, copies of original affidavits, confirmations, present status of loans, nature of loans and also failed to produce the creditors for establishing their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions, etc., in-spite of giving several opportunities of being heard. In view of these facts, it is not possible for the undersigned to verify the genuineness of the same and comply with the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT. Considering the facts in entirety, in my considered view, the appellant has squarely failed to establish the genuineness of these creditors, therefore, entire addition of ₹67 lakhs, made by the AO and upheld by the then CIT(A) 1, Thane, by giving detailed findings in the appeal order, is hereby sustained and the above ground of appeal is dismissed.”