HMA INTERLINING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR (4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1171/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2001-023 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, in the absence of the assessee and any supporting material, confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The appeals were disposed of based on the available record.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT, despite multiple adjournments. No material was filed by the assessee to contradict the Assessing Officer's findings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) should be upheld when the assessee fails to appear and provide evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Hearing: 30.5.2016Pronounced: 30.5.2016

Heard together (4 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1171/Mum/2011
I.T.A. No. 1172/Mum/2011
I.T.A. No. 4094/Mum/2012
I.T.A. No. 4095/Mum/2012

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

O R D E R Per Bench :-

All these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by learned CIT(A)-11, Mumbai. relate to the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2001-02 and 2003-04 respectively. Other two appeals relate to the quantum assessment proceedings pertaining to A.Y. 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

2 HMA Interlining P. Ltd.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though adjournment, on earlier occasions, was given at the specific request of the assessee. Hence we proceed to dispose of these appeals ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

4.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee did not appear before learned CIT(A) in all these appeals and hence the first appellate authority was constrained to pass ex-parte orders. We noticed from the order passed by learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2001-02 that the Tribunal had considered the appeal of the assessee on an earlier occasion in for that year and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal afresh, as the assessee did not appear before the first appellate authority on the first occasion. However, in the set aside proceedings also, the assessee did not appear before Ld CIT(A) and hence he has passed ex-parte orders.

5.

On perusal of the orders passed by learned CIT(A), we noticed that the assessee did not file any material before the first appellate authority to contradict the findings given by the Assessing Officer. Before us also, the assessee has not furnished any material in order to compel us to interfere with the orders passed by learned CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we have no other option, but to confirm the orders passed by learned CIT(A) in all these appeals.

6.

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 30.5.2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →