Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dated21.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and in the interest of natural justices allowing of allowing the actual expenses incurred for the purchase of the property Rs.67,54,826/- but allowed only Rs62,81,688/- .it resulted in increase of the short term capital gain by Rs.4,73,178/- The applicant prays that the same may be kindly be heard and allowed.
2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and in the interest of natural justices allowing the deletion of the agricultural income of Rs.7,28,400/-which was wrongly included in the income by the assessing officer. The applicant prays that the same may be kindly be heard and allowed.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal which was submitted on 22/04/2016 in the physical form and the same was accepted by the office of the CIT appeals as invalid without giving proper opportunity to re file in electronically mode before disposing the appeal. The applicant pray that an opportunity be given to e file the manually filed appeal and same be taken up for hearing. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
This appeal was fixed for hearing on 19.03.2018 and notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD which has come back unserved. Along with notice, a defect memo was also issued to the assessee in which it is stated that Tribunal Fee Challan/Receipt/Counterfoil does not indicate the category under which fee was paid. In spite of this, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing and hence, the appeal of the assessee is being decided ex-parte qua the assessee. Since the assessee has not even removed the defects, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and hence, dismissed as unadmitted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.