SUSHILA HOSPITALS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 10(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1255/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2891 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J SARAVANAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1255 /MUM/20 12 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07 - 08 ) SUSHILA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. 35, B TAGORE NAGAR VIKROLI EAST MUMBAI - 400 083. VS. ITO 10(1)(4) MU MBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAFCS5596P ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY S HRI J. SARAVANAN DATE OF HEARING 4.10 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 4 . 10 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 21, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2007 - 08. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THREE OCCASIONS , OF WHICH TWO NOTICES WERE RET URNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WAY BACK IN 2012, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. W E NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 15.11.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 3,09,377/ - . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT U/S. 144 OF THE I.T. ACT BY MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - SUSHILA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD. 2 A) DEPRECIATION ` 2,01,976/ - B) INTEREST ` 3,32,494/ - C) CREDIT CARD EXPENSES ` 31,340/ - D) CONVEYANCE EXPENSES ` 30,000/ - 4. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY TAXES DUE AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME . H ENCE HE HELD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADMITTED U/S. 249(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, BUT TH E LEARNED CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THEM BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I T RULES . ACCORDINGLY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY E VIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE HAS PAID TAX DUE ON RETURNED INCOME. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THIS LEGAL POINT ALONE. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES. 6. IN THE RESULT, AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 . 10 .2016 SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 04 / 10 / 2 0 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI