Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC II” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH
O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-53, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 19.09.2018. The assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Mumbai (in short ACIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 30.12.2016 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Mum/2018 Jupiter Metal Page | 2 2. None was present from assessee’s side. Now, this appeal was fixed for hearing for virtual court hearing through the Website of https://itat.webex.com/webappng/sites/itat/dashboard by putting a notice at ITAT’s Website Notice Board but despite that none is present from the assessee’s side. Hence, I heard this appeal as ex-parte and will decide this appeal.
I have heard the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, Dr. V. VinodKumar, he stated that assessee was asked to file details of return, computation of income, balance sheet and P & L Account etc. which were not produced before CIT(A). He further mentioned following Para 6 and 7 of CIT(A)’s order, wherein CIT(A) mentioned that assessee did not file any details to show that how and why such client modifications were done: - “6. The appellant was asked to file details of return, computation of income, B/S and P & L account of the appellant, brokers ledger, brokers note etc. This documents were not filed. 7. The appellant has not filed any details to show that how and why such client code modification were done. It is unusal for such modification to be of several digits if it is a mere punching error. It is also apparent that appellant is claiming losses on its F & O Trading regularly. Thus there is certainly a basis in the assessing officer treating such losses as not genuine which has been traced to Client Code Modification. The grounds of appeal
are dismissed. “
4. I find that the order passed by CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that details are not being provided. In my view, in the interest of justice and fair play,