SUBHADRA ATMARAM MOKASHE,PUNE vs. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7457/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 January 2017AY 2004-052 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 noted that the assessee did not attend the proceedings before the CIT(A) or the ITAT and did not provide any supporting documents. Therefore, the appeal was found to have no merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed an addition of Rs. 11,18,479/- made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, despite opportunities given.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and if the order was bad in law, given the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253,Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist (DR)
Hearing: 16.01.2017Pronounced: 16.01.2017

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B. S. Bist (DR) Date of hearing : 16.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2017 O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

1.

The present appeal u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-39, Mumbai dated 27.09.2013 for Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: i. Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order. ii. The order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.

2. The present appeal came up hearing on 16.01.2017. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite passing over the case. We have further noticed that notice sent to assessee by RPAD was returned back as the same was refused by assessee.

3. We have perused the record and find that assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was passed on 29.12.2010. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition/disallowance of Rs. 11,18,479/-. On appeal before ld. CIT(A), the addition was confirmed. Hence, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed before us.

4.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below and would argue that despite giving sufficient opportunity by ld. CIT(A), neither the assessee nor her representative appeared nor the assessee substantiated her claim by filing documentary evidence.

5.

We have considered the contention of ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the orders of authorities below. We have seen that the assessee not attended the proceeding despite giving a number of opportunity by ld. CIT(A). Even before us neither the assessee nor her representative came to attend the proceeding. No document to substantiate her claim or defence is filed before us. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by assessee. Thus, we confirmed the order of ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th January, 2017.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →