Mahender Kumar Mittal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2147/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7737 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJANA SENIOR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2147/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI MAHENDER KUMAR MITTAL, VS. ITO, WARD 23 (23), M 291, GREATER KAILASH PART II, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 048. (PAN : AAIPM8990M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI P. DAM KANUNJANA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.05.2016 DATE OF ORDER : 17.05.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, SHRI MAHENDER KUMAR MITTAL (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE), BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.02.2012 PASSED BY THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XII, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED :- ITA NO.2147/DEL./2012 2 IN SUSTAINING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER : (I) RS.8,05,000/- IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE GENUINENESS AND IDENTITY OF THE PAYEE HAD NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY ANY LOWER AUTHORITY. (II) RS.6,972/- BEING 1/6 TH OUT OF TOTAL VEHICLE EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.41,830/-. (III) RS.3,694/- BEING 1/6 TH OUT OF TOTAL TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.22,165/-. ALL THE ABOVE ACTIONS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNWARRANTED MUST BE QUASHED. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH R PAD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON 28.01.2016 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.05.2016 AS THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING. THE N OTICE FOR THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 17.05.2016 WAS ALSO SENT THROUGH RPAD BUT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN HIS A PPEARANCE HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NOR SENT A NY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO, IT IS APPARENT ON RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE LEGAL POSITION THAT MERE ISS UANCE OF NOTICE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ADMISSION OF APPEAL AND T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SQUARELY DECIDED BY HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ITA NO.2147/DEL./2012 3 HEREBY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WITH LIBER TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO RECALL THE ORDER SUBJECT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PUTTING HIS APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 17 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT-XII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.