Shri Hitesh K. Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1155/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0215 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JM AND D.C.AGRAW AL, AM SHRI HITESH K. SHAH, 29, SUNVILLA ROWHOUSE, GURUKUL ROAD, MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD. PANAGSPS 5269F VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- NONE. REVENUEBY:- SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR O R D E R PER D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 15/3/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS:- (1) LD. CIT(A)-XXI ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY DISPOSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PENALTY ORDER OF RS.55, 739/- PASSED BY THE LD. ITO. (2) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS THAT IN COME HAS NOT ACCRUED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. FURTHER, THE SAME IS TAKEN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND OFFERED FOR TAX ON WHICH TAX IS PAID AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. (3) THE LD. CIT(A) XXI HAS ERRED IN FACTS & LAW BY STAT ING THAT HE IS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SO FAR HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME. THE SAID ORDE R DOES NOT STATE THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION. ITA NO.1155/AHD/2010 ASST. YEAR :2006-07 2 (4) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED OUR SUBMISSION DA TED 15/3/2010 WHEREIN WE HAVE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX IN A LATER YEAR AT THE HIGHEST APPLICABLE RATE EVEN BEFORE THE SAID FACT WAS NOTICED OR INQUIRED INTO BY THE LD. AO AND HENCE NO LOSS OF REVENUE FOR DEPARTMENT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS SERVED, HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON HAS BEEN FILED. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VERY SERIOUS IN PURS UING THE APPEAL. NO DEFINITE REASON FOR APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL H AS BEEN GIVEN. WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REASON FOR ADJOURNMENT. HENC E, THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMI NE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/7/2010 SD/- SD/- (MUMUL KR. SHRAWAT) (D.C.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD, DATED : 30/7/2010 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 3 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD