MR.S.MUKUNDA,SHIMOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SHIMOGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 171/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2007-20083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) as it found no errors in the adjudication of issues. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was dismissed because the assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite multiple notices. The Tribunal heard the appeal ex-parte and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear before the tribunal, leading to an ex-parte hearing. The tribunal also considered grounds related to the validity of notice service and the assessment of turnover difference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV

For Respondent: Shri. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 02.03.2017Pronounced: 19.05.2017

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals), interalia, on the following grounds:

Page 2 of 3 1. The order passed by the appellate authority is bad in law and contrary to the Act.

2. The CIT(A) ought to have verified as to whether there was due service of notice before concluding the appellate proceedings.

3.

The CIT(A) erred in holding that there was no representation of appellant while the notice was not served on him and consequently passed a perverse order.

4. The CIT(A) erred in not following the directions as enumerated in section 250 of the act in disposing of the appeal.

Without prejudice to the above grounds 5. The appellant denies being liable to be assessed at Rs.4,88,550/- as against the declared income of Rs.1,75,000/- on the facts and circumstance of the case.

6.

The reopening of assessment was bad in law and consequently liable to be setaside.

7.

The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, the entire difference in turnover was not income but ought to have taxed only the profit on the difference of turnover as income on the facts and circumstance of the case.

8.

The appellant crave leave to add and alter the grounds at the time of hearing.

9.

The appellant prays that this Tribunal setaside the order passed by the CIT(A) and assessment order in the interest of justice and equity.

2.

This appeal came up for hearing on 02.03.2017, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite several notices of hearing. Page 3 of 3 3. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, I have no option but to hear the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. Accordingly, the revenue was heard.

4.

I have carefully examined the grounds of appeal as well as the order of the CIT(A) and I find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) as he has adjudicated all issues in detail in his order. Accordingly, I confirm the same.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →