SUSHILA HOSPITALS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1255/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 October 2016AY 2007-082 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal. The assessee failed to provide evidence of paying the tax due on the returned income, which is a prerequisite for admitting the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after the CIT(A) dismissed it. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer, leading to a best judgment assessment with several additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-payment of taxes due on the returned income.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be admitted when the assessee has not paid the taxes due on the returned income. Whether additional evidence can be admitted when conditions under Rule 46A are not met.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 249(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM)

For Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan
Hearing: 4.10.2016Pronounced: 4.10.2016

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2007- 08.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on three occasions, of which two notices were returned back by the postal authorities. Since the assessee has filed this appeal way back in 2012, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 15.11.2007 declaring total income of ` 3,09,377/-. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and hence he completed the assessment to the best of his judgement u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act by making following additions:-

2 Sushila Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. a) Depreciation ` 2,01,976/- b) Interest ` 3,32,494/- c) Credit card expenses ` 31,340/- d) Conveyance expenses ` 30,000/-

4.

In the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A), the first appellate authority noticed that the assessee did not pay taxes due as per the return of income. Hence he held that the appeal of the assessee cannot be admitted u/s. 249(4) of the Act. The assessee appears to have filed certain additional evidences, but the learned CIT(A) refused to admit them by holding that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under rule 46A of the I T Rules. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

Before us also, the assessee did not furnish any evidence to show that he has paid tax due on returned income. Hence we are of the view that learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on this legal point alone. Hence we do not find it necessary to adjudicate other issues.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 4.10.2016

More judgments on Section 249(4)

All 251 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →