JOGINDERPAL A DAWAR, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1532/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79015 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1532/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI JOGINDERPAL A DAWAR, 409-410 ABUWALA HOUSE GUNDECHA INDST. STATE, NEXT TO BIG BAZAR AKRAULI KANDIVALI(E), MUMBAI-400 101 VS. ITO, 25(3)(2), PRATIKSHKAR, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :- AFTPD 5831 N APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.05.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-35, MUMBAI DATED 22.12.2010 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,12,674/ - BEING 50% THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF RS.38,25,348/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE AND A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.50,24,415/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS. [ 3. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE HEARING OF THE CASE AND WE THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.DR AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E., THE LD.CIT(A) HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TIME BARRE D BY 30 DAYS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT BY THE LD.CIT(A), HAS NEITHER APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES OF HEARING NOR FILED ANY CONDONATION APPLICATION EXPLAINING ITA NOS. 1532/MUM/2011 SHRI JOHINDERPAL A DAWAR ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE REFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE ON THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS BAR RED BY LIMITATION. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE SAME IS THE SITUATION. IN TH IS CONNECTION, IT IS DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UP HELD. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY, 2014. /SD/ /SD/ (B.R.BASKARAN) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.05.2014. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR I BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.