RAJ OIL MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI

Since the issues involved in these five appeals are common, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the perusal of order sheet, we noticed that nobody was appearing on behalf of the assessee for the last many dates. 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.

We have heard Ld. DR at length and we have also perused the material placed on record well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal had granted adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is mentioned in tabular form in para 3.2 of AY: 2011-12 for AY: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 2549/Mum/2015 for AY: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 700/Mum/2015 for AY : 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 699/Mum/2015 for AY: 2006-07 M/s Raj Oils Ltd. the its order. Now, assessee had challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds mentioned above.

After analyzing the detailed order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we notice that assessee had been seeking adjournment from time to time on various occasions without any reasonable reason before Ld. CIT(A) and even assessee had not filed any statement of facts, written statements or documents, therefore Ld. CIT(A) had observed that not a single piece of paper filed except letter of adjournment by the assessee, which reflects that assessee is not interested in pursuing the case. Even before us, the conduct of the assessee is very casual and neither the assessee nor his representative had appeared before us. No paper book had been filed and the findings of the revenue authorities had also not been controverted or rebutted. Therefore in these circumstances, we have no other option except to dismiss these grounds of appeal of the assessee. We see no reasons to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A)

Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Now we take up assessee’s appeals in for AY: 2010-11), I.T.A. No. 2549/Mum/2015 for AY: 2010-11), I.T.A. No. 700/Mum/2015 for AY : 2007-08) & I.T.A. No. 699/Mum/2015 for AY: 2006-07). Since we have already decided the appeal filed by the assessee in AY 2011-12 and upheld the order of Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, following our own decision in ITA No. 2548/Mum/15, we apply the same findings in the present appeal

In the net result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (G. Manjunatha) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Memberन्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 27.06.2019 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 2. 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai गार्डफाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,