SHAFAT AHMED SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

During hearing of this appeal none was present for the assessee, whereas, Shri Rajendra Kumar, ld. DR, was representing the Department. The Ld. DR defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

2.1. We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is noted that this appeal was filed by the assessee on 28/11/2014 as is evident from record. Notice of hearing was sent/dispatched to the assessee/respondent on 03/05/2016. On 20/06/2016, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the hearing was adjourned to 20/07/2016 for which registered AD notice was sent. On 20/07/2016 also, none appeared for the assessee, thus, the hearing was adjourned to 18/08/2016. Again, registered AD notice was sent for 03/10/2016 as none appeared for the assessee and last opportunity was granted to the assessee. The assessee on 21/12/2016 appeared and requested for adjournment, which was accepted and the appeal was adjourned to 19/01/2017. On that date, the assessee again requested for adjournment and last and final opportunity was granted for 06/02/2016. Today, at the time of hearing, the assessee neither appeared nor moved any adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal. Considering the above factual matrix, it seems that assessee has nothing to say. We have also gone through the impugned order and are satisfied that the assessee has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim. Identical is the situation before us, therefore, without repeating the contents of the impugned order, we affirm the same, resulting into dismissal of appeal of the assessee.