Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai in IT Appeal No.100/2002- 03 dated 30.10.2002 for the assessment year 1999-2000.
None represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.D.Divahar represented on behalf of the Revenue.
This appeal was filed by the assessee on 13.02.2003 and Stay Petition No.365/Mds./2003 was filed by the assessee on 09.10.2003 before this Tribunal. The Stay Petition was posted on various dates and subsequently the assessee was granted early hearing and Stay Petition had been dismissed. The assessee had filed Writ Petition before the Hon”ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras against the order of the Tribunal in the Stay Petition and vide order dated 09.12.2003 and the Hon”ble High Court of Madras had called for the original records. The Hon”ble High Court of Madras vide Order dated 19.07.2017 had closed the Writ Petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to work-out his remedies on merits in accordance with law, if still need arises. This was in respect of the Stay Petition. The appeal file folder also came to be returned to the Tribunal.
3.1 The appeal had been posed for hearing by issuance of notice, on 16.09.2019 and the acknowledgement of service is also available. As none represented on 16.09.2019, the appeal was posted for hearing on 17.09.2019. Even today, when the matter came for hearing, none represented. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is being disposed off on merits.
The only issue in the assessee’s appeal is against the exparte assessment done and the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the loan of Rs.70,000/- received from various creditors as not genuine, also the addition of Rs.1,94,700/- treated as undisclosed income of assessee.
We have heard the submissions of ld.DR, and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer by saying that adequate opportunity had not been given. The ld.CIT(A) also verified the records and has held that adequate opportunity had been given to the assessee. It is noticed that before the Assessing Officer, nor before the ld.CIT(A), nor before us, the assessee has produced any evidence to rebut the additions made by the Assessing Officer. This being so, in the absence of any evidence being produced, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is found to be on the right footing and consequently, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed.