Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
Date of Hearing : 17.05.2016 Date of Order : 17.05.2016
O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Shri Mahender Kumar Mittal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2007-08 on the grounds inter alia that :- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (Appeals) has erred :-
In sustaining the following additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order : (i) Rs.8,05,000/- in contravention of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts that the genuineness and identity of the payee had not been doubted by any lower authority. Rs.6,972/- being 1/6th out of total vehicle expenses (ii) and depreciation of Rs.41,830/-. (iii) Rs.3,694/- being 1/6th out of total telephone expenses of Rs.22,165/-. All the above actions being arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted must be quashed.”
In the present appeal, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 28.01.2016 and the case was adjourned to 17.05.2016 as the Bench was not functioning. The notice for the next date of hearing i.e. 17.05.2016 was also sent through RPAD but the appellant has not preferred to put in his appearance himself or through his authorized representative nor sent any request for adjournment. So, it is apparent on record that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal.
Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing. 5. In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted. Order pronounced in open court on this 17th day of May, 2016.