DEKINSONS ASSOCIATES,,SANGLI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,, KOLHAPUR

Notice of hearing of the appeal was duly served on the assessee. Despite service of notice, none appeared to represent the assessee nor any letter of adjournment has been filed. A perusal of case file shows that the first notice of appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD for 09-04- 2018. On the said date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was adjourned to 20-06-2018. Fresh notice of appeal was sent to the assessee through RPAD. The notice of appeal was duly served as is evident from the acknowledgment card available on record. However, on 20-06-2018 the Bench did not function and the appeal was adjourned to 12-09-2018. On 12-09-2018 again none appeared on behalf of the assessee to defend the appeal. The appeal was adjourned to 15-11-2018 and fresh notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. The notice of hearing of appeal for 15-11-2018 was sent to the assessee through RPAD on 26-09-2018. The acknowledgment card available on record indicates that the notice was duly served. However, despite service of notice today again none is present to represent the assessee. It seems that the assessee is not keen to prosecute the appeal. Under such circumstances we are constrained to take up the appeal of assessee for hearing with the assistance of ld. DR and material available on record.

The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is a wholesale distributor of medicines. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 01-05-2013 declaring total income of Rs.4,46,800/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, accordingly statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 02-09-2014. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 17-03-2015 after making addition of Rs.1,30,000/- assessed the total income of the assessee as Rs.5,76,800/-.

Shri S.B. Prasad representing the Department submitted that the assessee was non-cooperative before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, as well. Several notices were issued to the assessee, however, no one bothered to attend hearing on behalf of the assessee. There was lack of co- operation from the assessee in completing the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently defended the order of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and to further support the same placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii. Virbhadra Singh (HUF) Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 400 ITR 530 (HP); iii. Gopisons Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 356/PN/2012 for assessment year 2006-07 decided on 03-07-2013.

We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have perused the impugned order. There is no material on record controverting the findings of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. Under such circumstances we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal of assessee.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.