ASHAR REALTORS,THANE vs. ADDL CIT RG 23(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any new material or evidence to counter the findings. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal for multiple hearings, despite notices. The FAA had dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a lack of documentary evidence to support its claims.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal could be dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of evidence to support claims.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of ld. CIT(A)-11, Mumbai, dated 2.11.2012 pertains to the assessment year 2008- 09.
At the outset, we would like to mention here that neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before this Tribunal when the appeal was called for hearing nor was any application seeking adjournment of the hearing received in the office despite service of notice through RPAD. On the earlier occasions also on 18.5.2015, 28.10.2015, 23.3.2016 and 27.10.2016, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared before us when the case was called for hearing and the case was adjourned several times to give opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We, are therefore, proceeding to dispose of the appeal on merit ex-parte after hearing the ld.DR.
We find that the FAA has recorded the finding of facts on the issues. The appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of its claim, and consequent the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. On the ground no.2 to 8, the issues raised before the Tribunal were same as raised before the FAA. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) and after hearing the ld.DR, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal after considering the material on record. Even before us no new material was brought on record to prove that the finding of ld.CIT(A) were wrong. We, therefore, uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th April, 2017 Sd sd (SAKTIJIT DEY) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 4.4.2017 SRL,Sr.PS
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026