SHRI. LAKSHMIPATHI.N,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, after examining the CIT(Appeals) order, found no infirmity and rejected the appeal. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order confirming an addition made by the AO towards capital introduced to a proprietary concern. The assessee claimed the capital was introduced from savings out of house property income.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO towards capital introduced and the disallowance of interest under Section 234B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
Date of hearing : 01.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.08.2017 O R D E R This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.10.2015 of the CIT(Appeals), Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru inter alia on the following grounds:-
“1. The CIT (A) erred in passing the Order in the manner which she did. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by AO towards Capital introduced to the proprietary concern.
3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant received income from house property and out of the savings the capital was introduced, the learned CIT (A) ought to have allowed the same.
4. The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the submissions of the Appellant and ought to have allowed. 5. Without prejudice the disallowance addition as confirmed are excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to have deleted in toto. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the Interest u/s. 234B of the Act. 7. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”
This appeal was called up for hearing, but none appeared on behalf of assessee. On perusal of record, it is noticed that on the last date of hearing, the case was adjourned at the request of ld. counsel for the assessee. Therefore, despite having knowledge of the date fixed for hearing, there was no appearance. Accordingly, I have no option, but to hear the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee.
I have, however, carefully examined the order of CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition made by the AO and I find no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Accordingly the appeal is rejected.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 234B
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
