RITIKA A MUCCHALA, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1531/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2500 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1531 /MUM/ 20 1 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0 ) I.T.A. NO. 5625/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09) SMT. RITIKA A. MUCHHALA C/O. D.C. JAIN & CO. 7 5, BOMBAY MUTUAL B LDG. 293, DR.D.N ROAD FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001. VS. DCIT 8(2) ROOM NO. 209 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AFWPM8852M ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI NITIN WAGHMODE DATE OF HEARING 20. 7 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20. 7 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - 17, MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH HEARING WAS ADJOURNED ON THE LAST OCCASION AT THE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ORDER - SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION . HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN BOTH THE YEARS THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF DEEMED RENT AND DEEMED DIVIDEND . IN A.Y. 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CONTESTING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - SMT. RITIKA A. MUCHHALA 2 A) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. B) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER ON ALL THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A). UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 .7.2016 SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 20 / 7 / 20 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) ITAT, MUMBAI PS