NISHA P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6272/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2017AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear for hearings. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had considered the documents and contentions before confirming the additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the AO for bogus purchases and disallowance of VAT on those purchases. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution. Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for bogus purchases and VAT were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Hearing: 22/06/2017Pronounced: 18/09/2017

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’).

2.

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.)

2.

New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H)

3.

CIT vs. B. N. BhattachargeeAnd Another 118 ITR 461(SC)

3.

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).

4.

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 :

1.

The Appellant

2.

The Respondent.

3.

The CIT(A)-

4.

CIT

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6.

Guard file. BY ORDER,

3 //// (Dy./Asstt.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →