Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.