SIDDHIVINAYAK SALES CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(3)(1), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 29.08.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / (‘Ld. CIT(A)’), for the assessment year 2017-18.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called. From the records, we noticed that the service of notice was effected upon the 2 Siddhivinayak Sales Corporation, Mumbai assessee through registered post acknowledgement due on the address supplied by the assessee, however the said notice was returned back with the endorsement ‘left’ and assessee has not provided any other address for effecting service. The notice was sent on last and best known address. Therefore, I consider the service of notice upon the assessee was ‘duly served’ and thus it was the duty of the asessee to appear before the Bench on each and every date of hearing as the appeal has been filed by the assessee. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, which shows that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal, therefore assessee is proceeded ex-parte. On the contrary, the Ld. Ld.DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.

By raising the grounds of appeal

Now after having gone through the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and also having heard Ld. DR I am of the view that it is obligatory on the part of the assessee to cooperatively and effectively pursue the appeal before the appellate authority in effective and productive manner. Whereas the facts of the present case clearly reveals that assessee through its repetitive none compliance has shown complete lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The assessee has not even given the basic details in support of its claim and therefore I find no reasons to interfere into or deviat from orders passed by the revenue authorities. The only defence raised by the assessee before the Ld.AO was that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was from its business proceeds, however the AO did not accept it and the operative portion of the order of the AO is reproduced below:

Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding the source of cash deposits the AO has rightly held the sum as unexplained and made addition u/s 69A of the Act. Even before CIT(A) and before me the assessee has neither appeared nor placed on record any details or submissions to rebut or controvert the findings of the revenue authorities. Thus, I feel no reasons to interfere into the well reasoned orders passed by the revenue authorities.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost.