Smt. Hina Mudgal, Kanpur V. ITO I (2), Kanpur

ITA 164/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54809 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S. K. YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. R. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 16 4 /LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 0 7 SMT. HINA MUDGAL PROP. M/S FOOD BY ATTINS KANPUR V. ITO 1 ( 2) KANPUR PAN: AAJFS7960C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. R. K. RAM, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 05.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.10.2011 O R D E R PER S. K. YADAV : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,52,042/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES, WHICH ADDITION IS CONTRARY TO FACTS BAD IN LAW AND BE DELE TED. 2. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS ARBITRARILY HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF SALES AS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF J.S. TOWER AND AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THE SUPPRESSED SAL ES OF THE ASSESSEE. : - 2 - : 3. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/ - BEING AMOUNT PAYABLE TOWARDS RENT. 4. BECAUSE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND BE SET A SIDE. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 5.10.2011 BUT NONE APPEARED ONE BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR D ESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF TH E DATE OF HEARING, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AND WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDIC ATED THE IMPUGNED ISSUES IN DETAIL IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEE S CONTENTIONS . SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS NOTICED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) . 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.10.11. SD/ - SD/ - [B. R. JAIN ] [ S. K. YADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10.10.2011 JJ: 0510 : - 3 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR