RITIKA A MUCCHALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1531/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2016AY 2009-102 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, after hearing the Departmental Representative and perusing the record, found that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order. Since the assessee provided no material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee did not appear for the hearing despite prior adjournments.

What were the issues?

The appeals contested additions made in respect of deemed rent, deemed dividend, unexplained investment, and unexplained cash credit.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

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

For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode
Hearing: 20.7.2016Pronounced: 20.7.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1531/Mum/2013
I.T.A. No. 5625/Mum/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-17, Mumbai for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though hearing was adjourned on the last occasion at the specific request made by the assessee. We also noticed from the order-sheet that the assessee has been seeking adjournments on more than one occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

In both the years the assessee is contesting addition made in respect of deemed rent and deemed dividend. In A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee is also contesting following additions:-

2 Smt. Ritika A. Muchhala a) Unexplained investment. b) Unexplained cash credit.

4.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that learned CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order on all the issues contested by the assessee. On the contrary, the assessee has not filed any material to contradict the findings given by learned CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the orders passed by learned CIT(A) do not call for any interference.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 20.7.2016

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →