M/S. SHREYANS CREDIT & CAPITAL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CEMTRAL CIRCLE7(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1644/MUM/2020Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2015-162 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 the assessee and without any contradictory material, confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had upheld the Assessing Officer's addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of disallowance of business loss of Rs. 15.30 crores, deemed non-genuine. The appeal was previously disposed of, but the order was recalled. The assessee failed to appear for subsequent hearings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the genuineness of the business loss claimed by the assessee on contract settlement.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Hearing: 08/05/2024Pronounced: 08/05/2024

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 49, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) and it relates to A.Y 2015-16. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of business loss of Rs.15.30 crores arising on contract settlement by holding the same as non- genuine one.

2.

This appeal was originally disposed of by the Tribunal on 31.03.2023. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application subsequently seeking recall of the order and the same was numbered as M.A. No. 644/Mum/2023. The Tribunal

M/s. Shreyans Credit and Capital P. Ltd. recalled its order dated 31.03.2023 allowing the Miscellaneous Application order passed on 08.02.2024. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on 26.03.2024.

3.

We observe that the notices sent by the Registry was returned by the Postal Department with the noting “not traceable”. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on four occasions. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without the presence of the assessee.

4.

We heard the learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not filed any material to contradict the finding so given by the learned CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we do not have any option but to confirm the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th May, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →