OCTANT INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. The ld. DR invited our attention to para 3.4 of the order of ld.CIT(A) wherein it is observed by the ld.CIT (A) that “the ld. AR of the appellant had no objection in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.39,75,165/ under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act (vide order sheet noting dated 23.8.2013)”. Accordingly, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has agreed to the addition and it cannot be said that the assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We find merit in the contentions of the ld. DR. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT, 108 ITR 73 (Mad.) has held that “the appeal shall become incompetent if the assessee could not be said to have been aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer or Appellate Authority. Similar view has been expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Limited reported in 140 ITR 705 (Mad). Since the assessee has agreed to the addition, normally it cannot be said that the assessee is aggrieved by the order of Ld CIT(A) on the said issue. It was not shown to us that the acceptance of the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) is against the principles of law. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee..

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 1st Jan,2016. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 1st Jan, 2016 को की गई । (AMARJIT SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 1st Jan, 2015. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS