ASHISH INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3)(1), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) Per Rajendra, A.M.लेखा सद�य राजे�� के अनुसारः Challenging the order dt.10.11.2010 of CIT(A)-29, Mumbai, the Assessee, has raised following grounds of appeal : Out of the 7 grounds filed by the assessee, ground No.1, deals with the reopening of the assessment. During the course of hearing before us, the AR of the assessee did not press the ground No.1, hence same stands dismissed as not pressed. 2.Assessee -firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel wool filed its return of income on 15.10.2001 declaring nil income. The assessment was completed on 26.12.2002, u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1.42 lacs.Subsequently, the assessment was reopened vide notice dated 10.1.2008 issued u/s. 148 of the Act.The AO completed the assessment on 30.12.2008, u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, computing the income of the assessee at Rs.7,15,080/- 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. The case was fixed for hearing on four occasions but could not be heard as the assessee had sought adjournments.The FAA fixed the case for final hearing on 27.10.2010 and nobody appeared before him. As per the FAA no request for adjournment was also filed by the assessee and notice came back as not claimed.In these circumstances the FAA upheld the order of the AO. 4.Before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the matter was represented by late Gauri Shanker G. Agarwal, that due to his serious ill health and ultimate death on 9.7.2010 the appeal could not be attended, that later on some other AR requested the FAA to hear the case alongwith the sister concern M/s. Boom Industries, that in the case of M/s. Boom Industries the Tribunal had deleted the addition, that the facts of the case were identical to the facts of M/s. Boom Industries. He referred to the death certificate of Late shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal (page 4 of the paper book) alongwith the bill of Hinduja Hospital. He further stated that assessee had necessary evidence to prove the claim before the AO, that matter could be restored back to the file of the FAA. Departmental Representtive (DR) left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.