Mr.S.Mukunda, Shimoga V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Shimoga

ITA 171/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5358 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.171/B/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MR. S. MUKUNDA, SRINIVASA WINE STORES, JAIL ROAD, SHIMOGA PAN:AEJPM9828M VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIMOGA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 . 05 .201 7 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), INTERALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO. 171/B/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE ACT. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED AS TO WHETHER THE RE WAS DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE BEFORE CONCLUDING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO REPRE SENTATION OF APPELLANT WHILE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON HIM AND CONSEQUE NTLY PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS AS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 250 OF THE ACT IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS 5. THE APPELLANT DENIES BEING LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AT RS.4,88,550/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,75,000/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 6. THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW AND CONS EQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE SETASIDE. 7. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT, THE ENTI RE DIFFERENCE IN TURNOVER WAS NOT INCOME BUT OUGHT TO HAVE TAXED ONL Y THE PROFIT ON THE DIFFERENCE OF TURNOVER AS INCOME ON THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD AND ALTER THE GROU NDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 9. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL SETASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 02.03.2017, B UT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL NOTICES O F HEARING. ITA NO. 171/B/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 3. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS HE HAS ADJUDICATED ALL ISSUES IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER. ACC ORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.05.2017. SD/- ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 19 .05.2017 /NSHYLU/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.