Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV
Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member
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.
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.
The reopening of assessment was bad in law and consequently liable to be setaside.
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.
The appellant crave leave to add and alter the grounds at the time of hearing.
The appellant prays that this Tribunal setaside the order passed by the CIT(A) and assessment order in the interest of justice and equity.
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2017.