Nagesh Nagu, Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 190/HYD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2624 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L R AMJI RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS 190 AND 191 OF 2017 NAGESH NAGU HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 190 & 191/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI NAGESH NAGU KANCHANBAGH, HYDERABAD PAN: ADAPN 2299 R VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(2) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : N O N E FOR REVENUE : SHRI L. RAMJI RAO, DR O R D E R BOTH ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-7, HYDERABAD, DATE D 14 TH MARCH, 2016. ITA NO.190/HYD/2017 IS AGAINST THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHILE ITA NO. 191 IS AGAINST THE PENALTY CONFIRMED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CONF IRMED BY THE CIT (A). 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEA RED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND ONE MR. SUDHAKARA RAO, ADVOCATE HAS ALSO FILED A VAKALATNAMA ON 9.8.2016. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIRST DATE OF HEARING I.E ON 16.05.2017 NOR TODAY I.E. 24.08.2017. THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE APPEAL. FURTHER, IT IS NOTI CED THAT THERE IS DATE OF HEARING : 24.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2017 ITA NOS 190 AND 191 OF 2017 NAGESH NAGU HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 2 A DELAY OF 126 DAYS DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL B EFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFAC TORILY EXPLAINED THE DELAY. ON MERITS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFF ERED ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND OUT BY THE AO IN THE P&L A/C WITH REGARD TO THE CLOSING STOCK AND ALSO THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE CONTRACTS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS FROM THE RECEIPTS AS PER AS-26. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND ALSO ON MERITS. 3. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 30 TH AUGUST, 2017. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI G. SUDHAKARA RAO, ADVOCATE, H.NO.8-3-191/188 /51-B VENGALARAL NAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD 500038 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(2) HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-7 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 7 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER