RAMESHCHANDRA M TRIPATHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1225/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2017AY 2011-122 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, in the absence of any representation or material from the assessee, found no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the CIT(A). Consequently, the orders of the lower appellate authority were confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) or the ITAT, leading to ex-parte orders. The ITAT had to decide the appeals based on the available records and the arguments of the Departmental Representative.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions and disallowances made by the lower authorities are sustainable when the assessee fails to appear and present their case before the appellate tribunals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha
Hearing: 16.10.2017Pronounced: 16.10.2017

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1225/Mum/2017
I.T.A. No. 1224/Mum/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai and they relate to A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex-pare, without presence of the assessee.

3.

I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. In A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to income from house property, bogus purchases, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, addition u/s. 41(1), disallowance relating to depreciation and disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A.

2 Shri Rameshchandra M. Tripathi

4.

In A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to income from house property and disallowance of interest and depreciation.

5.

I noticed that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) also and hence the first appellate authority has passed the orders ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. I noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order giving proper reasoning. Before the Tribunal the assessee did not file any material to compel me to interfere with the orders passed by the learned CIT(A). Under these set of facts, I have no other option but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in both the years.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 16.10.2017.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →