Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
We find from the perusal of the record that there was no compliance by the assessee to the hearing fixed before the Tribunal on 09.01.2017, 11.01.2017, 09.02.2017, 23.03.2017, 25.05.2017 and 22.06.2017. At the threshold, it is relevant to mention that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for. We
2 find that proper notice of hearing has already been given to the assessee. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such we hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.)
New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H)
CIT vs. B. N. BhattachargeeAnd Another 118 ITR 461(SC)
On merit we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken into account the concerned documents and the contentions of the authorized representative of the assessee and then confirmed (i) the addition of Rs.34,58,657/- made by the AO towards bogus purchases, (ii) disallowance of Rs.1,33,025/- made by the AO towards VAT on the above bogus purchases. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/09/2017. (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 18/09/2017 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant
The Respondent.
The CIT(A)-
CIT
DR, ITAT, Mumbai
Guard file. BY ORDER,
3 //// (Dy./Asstt.