Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) PCIT-23 Neha Nitin Pawar, Room No. 124, 1st floor, 503, Mitra Pariwar Co- op. HSG Society, Kher बिधम/ Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Nagar, Ram Mandir Vs. Road, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AJEPP6111G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.10.2020 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANTMEMBER):
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the stay application rejected by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Neha Nitin Pawar Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai in short ‘Ld. PCIT(A)’ dated 19.02.2019 for AY 2011-12.
At the outset, it is noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
Ld. DR submitted that the present appeal filed by the assessee is against the stay application rejected by Ld. PCIT, therefore the present appeal is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
Considered the submission of Ld. DR and material placed on record. We notice from the record that the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, determining the demand of Rs. 33,93,060 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Aggrieved with the above, assessee filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), however in the meantime, assessee filed an application for stay of recovery of disputed demand for this Neha Nitin Pawar assessment year before the AO and PCIT-23, Mumbai. The said application was rejected by the revenue authorities with a direction to pay 20% of the demand and the balance will be stayed till the adjudication of the appeal by Ld. CIT(A).
Aggrieved with the rejection of stay application, assessee filed the present appeal before us.
After careful consideration, we notice that the present appeal is not an appeal appealable u/s 253 of the Act. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous.