Shri. Sandeep B Kothari, Hubli V. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli

ITA 2092/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5276 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2092/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SANDEEP B. KOTHARI, PROP: M/S. SANGAM FASHION, MADHURA MARKET, DAJIBANPETH, HUBLI. PAN: AERPK 9152Q VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3, HUBLI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. BIJU, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 24.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.06.2017 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2016 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. NONE HA S APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ON THE EARLIE R DATE OF HEARING ON 20.02.2017 THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ITA NO. 2092/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 4 INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDI NGLY I PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EXPARTE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI HA S DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF WRONG FACT. 2. THE ORDERED PASSED HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY , DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS AND TO FILE A PAP ER BOOK AT TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS THAT MAY BE MADE AT TIME HEARING OF APPEAL, IT IS PRAYED. 1.TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVE D CREDIT BALANCES OF RS. 5,20,725/- OR 2.TO DIRECT THE LEARNT CIT APPEALS HUBLI, TO OUR AP PEAL ON MERITS DISUSED. 3.ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL DEEM S FIT. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED CRED IT BALANCE OF RS. 5,20,725/-. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL IN PARA 3 AS UNDER. 3. WHEN THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION BY ISSUE OF HEARING NOTICE, SHRI VINAY KULKARNI, CA ITA NO. 2092/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 4 APPEARED AND REPRESENTED REQUESTED TO PERMIT HIM TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. AFTER DISCUSSING THE CASE WITH HIM, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF REQUESTED THE CIT(A) TO PERMIT IT TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BUT HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENT OR EVEN AFFID AVIT TO STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE REQUEST BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FACTS OR MA TERIAL OR EVEN REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE I DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO DOUBT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RECORDING REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 5. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 07 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017. SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 07 TH JUNE, 2017. / MS/ ITA NO. 2092/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.