Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Mumbai, dated 02-02-2017 for the AY. 2010-11.
This appeal was fixed for hearing on 31-01-2019. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD on the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36 i.e. the appeal memo.
The said notice has come back un-served with remarks ‘insufficient address and not known’. No new address has been provided by the assessee to the Tribunal. Hence, service of notice on the assessee is not possible. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and at the time of hearing, there is no request for adjournment. Therefore, in the present facts, the appeal of the assessee was heard ex-parte qua the assessee.
Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the authorities below.
I have considered the submissions of Ld. DR for the Revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below and material available on record. I find that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are regarding computation of capital gains of Rs. 15,27,019/- as Short Term Capital Gains.
The assessment was completed by the AO u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). AO noted in the assessment order that in spite of issue of notice u/s. 148 and subsequent issue of notice u/s. 142(1), assessee-company did not file any return of income, Balance Sheet, P&L A/c or computation of income. He also noted that assessee has only submitted Deed of Conveyance for sale of land and a copy of bank statement.
It is also noted by the AO at Pg. No. 2 of the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted a note stating that assessee-company was having re-rolling mill at Halol in Gujarat and the same has stopped its business for the last 18 years. He also submitted that there was land purchased by the company for factory in the year 1980-81, which ran its business till AY. 1993-94. The plot of land was sold to M/s. Polycab Wires Ltd., during FY.
2009-10 for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,27,019/-. The AO came to the conclusion that value of land as on 01-04-2010 was NIL and on this basis, he assessed the entire sale proceeds as income under the head ‘capital gains’. He also considered that Section 41(2) of the Act and held that such capital gain is to be assessed as Short Term Capital Gain.
Against this assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). But in spite of issue of four notices dt. 14th Sept.
2016, 30th Sept. 2016, 13th Oct. 2016 and 4th Jan. 2017, none appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and the impugned order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 02-02-2017 ex-parte Qua the assessee. Since there was no submission made by the assessee before the CIT(A), he confirmed the order of AO.
Relevant Para of the order of CIT(A) are Para Nos. 5 & 5.1, which are re-produced herein below for ready reference:
“5. Decision – I have carefully considered the AO’s order, there being no submissions from the appellant’s side. The AO has brought out all the facts quite clearly in his order. The AO had in his possession details of the sale of a plot of land for Rs. 15.07 lakhs. In the absence of any other details, taking the WDV of the impugned plot of land at nil, the AO had sought to charge to tax the entire sale consideration of Rs. 15.07. It is clear that the appellant had no business running. The AO had accordingly considered the said sale consideration as the profit of the appellant's business. In the absence of any other details, this action of the AO is hereby affirmed.
5.1 Coming to the grounds of appeal, ground nos. 1 and 3 have agitated against the sole addition made by the AO. As the same has already been confirmed, ground nos. 1 and 3 are hereby dismissed. Ground no. 2 has protested the initiation of various penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271F and 272B of the Act. As no penalty has been imposed in the order under appeal, this ground is dismissed as being premature.
5.2 To recapitulate, all the three grounds are dismissed”.
Before the Tribunal also, none appeared on behalf of the assessee for the reason that notice of hearing could not be served on the assessee because it is reported by the postal department that ‘the address of the assessee is insufficient address and the assessee is not known at that address’. In the absence of any explanation by the assessee, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Grounds raised by assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st day of February, 2019