M/s Maa Kamakhya Darbar Fragrances (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 243/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 24323714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.243/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 2009 MAA KAMAKHYA DARBAR FRAGRANCES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 368, HARISGANJ, KANPUR. PAN:AAECM1414E VS. DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 16/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 /04/2014 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 26/12/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HA S ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.1,90,903.00. 2. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING EX - PARTE AND APPEAL ORDER. 3. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LAST NOTICE OF HEARING HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, BEING PASSED WITHOUT ENSURING THAT WHATEVER NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SERVED ON IT OR NOT. 4. THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS PROPERLY AND NOT GOING THROUGH THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 5. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AS WELL AS OBSERVATIONS OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT CORRECT AND IN FACT, LEGALIY AS WELL AS FACTUALLY, ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR ALL CLAIMS WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO WITHDRAW, INTRODUCE OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO ARISES. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 16 .0 4 .2014, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THA T NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST WHICH HAS NOT C O ME UNSERVED, THEREFORE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AND I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE IMPUGNED ISSUES IN DETAIL IN THE L IGHT OF ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. SINCE NO INFIRMITY IS NOTICED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/04/2014 ) SD/. [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 /04/ 2014 *C.L. SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR