Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Date of hearing : 22.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 O R D E R
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-
“1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,16,28,379/- being there was no response received from Mis Channel Plus (now changed to M/s Sun 18 Media services South (P) Ltd.) in pursuance to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act and the same is treated as ungenuine liabilities under section 41(l) of the Act.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in not accepting additional evidence in respect of Appeal filed vid letter filed on 11-08-2017, which was not submitted to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules in respect of M/s Channel Plus (now changed to M/s Sun 18 Media services South (P) Ltd.) on grounds that the appellant fails to furnish documents before the Assessing Officer in respect of M/s Sun 18 Media services South (P) Ltd.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 26,55,606/- being the difference between the amount of closing balance as per confirmation received from Mis Ushodaya Enterprises P. Ltd. (ETV) in pursuance to the response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as ungenuine liabilities under section 41 (1) of the Act. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in law in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of outstanding entertainment tax liability amounting to Rs. 31,44,424/-. 5. Without prejudice to what is stated in above, the learned Income-tax officer erred in law in not adjusting the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years against the net taxable income while computing the tax liability. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in law in upholding levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, amounting to Rs. 19,08,418/-. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s has erred in law in upholding levy of interest under section 234D of the Act, amounting to Rs. 34,085/-. 8. The appellant submits that the learned Income-tax officer be directed: a) to delete addition of a sum of Rs. 1,16,28,379/- made on account of difference in the closing balance of Mis Channel Plus; b) to admit additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules in respect of Mis Channel Plus (now changed to Mis Sun 18 Media services South (P) Ltd.) c) to delete addition of a sum of Rs. 26,55,606/- made on account of difference in the closing balance of M/s Ushodaya Enterprises; d) without prejudice to the above, to adjust the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the net taxable income arrived after making the disallowances, while computing the tax liability; e) to delete the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 19,08,418/-; f) to delete the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 34,085/-; and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of law.
Each of the above grounds of appeal
is independent and without prejudice to each other.
10. The appellant craves liberty to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds of appeal as and when given.
This appeal is listed for hearing on 22.03.2018, but none appeared for the assessee. On a careful perusal of the record, we find that notice has been issued to the assessee. Therefore, despite having knowledge of the date fixed for hearing, there was no appearance from the assessee. Accordingly, we have no option, but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee.
We have, however, carefully examined the order of CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition made by the AO and we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Accordingly the appeal is rejected.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 13th April, 2018.