What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the stand of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's repeated adjournments and absence. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

The assessee is aggrieved by the order treating business receipts as income from house property and disallowing business expenses. The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments and was absent during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the business receipts were correctly treated as income from house property and whether the disallowance of business expenditure was justified. The primary issue became the assessee's non-prosecution of the appeal.

Synergy vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2017

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Bist-DR

Hearing: 13/02/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13/07/2010 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the grounds stated in the grounds of appeal, broadly treating the business receipt of Rs.36 lakhs as income from house property, while computing the total income of the assessee and disallowing the expenditure in connection with running of business centre, as claimed by the assessee.

2. During hearing of this appeal, none was present for the assessee, whereas, Shri B.S. Bist, ld. DR, was present for the Revenue. It is noted that this appeal was filed by the assessee on 19/10/2010 and was fixed for hearing for 26/07/2012, wherein, at the request of the assessee, this appeal was adjourned to 10/12/2012. On 10/12/2012, 10/06/2013 and 04/12/2013, the Bench did not function. Notice of hearing through registered AD was again send to the assessee for 10/06/2014. The assessee again moved for adjournment and the appeal was adjourned to 29/12/2014. On that date, the Bench did not function, therefore, the appeal was adjourned to 18/06/2015. The assessee moved application for adjournment and thus, the appeal was adjourned to 29/12/2015. On 29/12/2015 the Bench did not function, therefore, the appeal was adjourned to 04/07/2016. On that date, nobody represented the assessee, therefore, registered AD notice was issued for 13/02/2017. The assessee neither presented itself nor moved any adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal as whenever the appeal was fixed for hearing, the assessee sought adjournment. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances available on record, we confirmed the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on the plea/reasons stated in para 5 (page-2) of the impugned order.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 13/02/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Pradhan) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 17/02/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

SYNERGY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments