Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM)
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 20.7.2016