ASHAR REALTORS, THANE V. ADDL CIT RG 23(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1499/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1457 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1499/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2 00 8 - 09 ) M/S AS HAR REALTORS, ASHAR IT PARK, GROUND FLOOR, ROAD NO.16Z, WAGLE INDUSRIAL ESTATE, POKHRAN ROAD NO.2, THANE(W) - 400601 / VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RANGE 23(2), C - 10, 2 ND FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400051 APPE LLANT RESPONDENT PAN: AAHFA1708J / APPELLANT BY : NONE /R ESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV / DATE OF HEARING : 4.4.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4.4. 2017 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 11, MUMBAI, DATE D 2.11.2012 PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09. 2 I.T.A. NO. 1499 / MUM/ 201 3 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR I TS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD . ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO ON 18 .5.2015, 28.10.2015, 23.3.2016 AND 27.10.2016, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE US WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE , ARE THEREFORE, PROCEED ING TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT EX - PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR. 3 . WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAS RECORDED THE FINDING OF FACTS ON THE ISSUES. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM , AND CONS EQUENT THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE GROUND NO.2 TO 8 , THE ISSUE S RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE SAME AS RAISED BEFORE THE FAA. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR , WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. E VEN BEFORE US NO NEW MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) WERE WRONG. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 3 I.T.A. NO. 1499 / MUM/ 201 3 4 . IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4TH APRIL , 2017 S D SD ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 4.4 . 2017 SRL,SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI