No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”
Before: HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM
Pr. CIT-2, M/s The Mills Store Company Room No. 344, 3rd (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ floor, Aayakar 23, Morvi House, 28/30, Goa Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Street, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCT0636M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / : Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri M. Daya Sagar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.05.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. PCIT – 2, Mumbai dated 19.01.18 for AY 2013-14. M/s The Mills Store Company (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.
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. From the record, we observed that on the last date of hearing on 20.02.19, the assessee filed an application for seeking adjournment, therefore considering the request of assessee, matter was adjourned to 02.05.19 i.e. today. However, none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. Therefore we have no other option except to proceed the assessee ex-parte. On the other hand Ld. DR present in the court 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.
The grounds raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. Pr. CIT, u/s 263of the I.T. Act, revising assessment order dated 30.03.16 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
M/s The Mills Store Company (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. From the records, we notice that in para no. 3 of the order of Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 of the act, assessee had sought adjournments from time to time on various occasions and thus the assessee as well as his authorized representative had not appeared, therefore in the absence of assessee or his representative, the matter was decided by Ld. PCIT ex-parte. Even before us, neither the assessee nor his representative had appeared. We are of the view that it is the bounded duty of the assessee or his representative to appear before the authorities on each and every date of hearing and to assist and cooperate the authorities for the early disposal of the case/appeal.
As far as challenging the order u/s 263 passed by Ld. PCIT is concerned, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld PCIT. Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. PCIT. Hence, we are of the considered view that the M/s The Mills Store Company (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. findings so recorded by the Ld. PCIT are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.