PATIL CONSTRUCITON,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1652/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 June 2016AY 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 decided to dismiss the appeal ex-parte due to the unrectified defects in the appeal memo. They also found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s reasoned order as the assessee provided no material to controvert it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed in February 2011, but defects in the appeal memo were not rectified. The assessee also failed to appear for hearings despite multiple notices.

What were the issues?

The validity of reopening of assessment and an addition of Rs. 8.25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer were the grounds of appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam
Hearing: 9.6.2016Pronounced: 9.6.2016

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned CIT(A)-1, Thane and it relates to A.Y. 2004-05.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing sent to the assessee by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We noticed that the Registry has pointed out certain defects in the appeal memo filed by the assessee and till date defects have not been rectified, even though the appeal was filed way back in February, 2011. Hence on this ground alone, this appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.

2 Patil Construction

4.

Grounds of appeal urged by the assessee relate to the validity of reopening of assessment and addition of ` 8.25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer.

5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the order passed by learned CIT(A). We notice that the first appellate authority has passed a reasoned order on the issues urged by the assessee. We notice that the assessee has not filed any material in order to controvert the decision given by learned CIT(A) on both the issues. Under these set of facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same.

5.

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

Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 9.6.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →