Srinivasulu Rajesh , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

ITA 2452/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7687 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES A BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO.2452/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16 SRINIVASULU RAJESH, 1/2/601, SURYA BAR & RESTAURANT, BOMMANAHALLI GEHUR, HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560068. PAN: AGEPR 8387 F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3)(4), BENGALURU, KARNATAKA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: NONE FOR REVENUE : SRI RENUGA DEVI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 09.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .04.2019 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 4, BANGALORE, DATED 26/06/2018 PASSED U/S 143(3) AND U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ITO U/S 44AD AT RS. 7,31,999/ - AS AGAINST THE NET PROFIT OF RS. ( - ) 6,63,927/ - SHOWN IN THE P & L ACCOUNT STATEMENT ISSUED BY M/S. ZERODHA. 2. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED U/SS. 70(1) AND 71(1), TO HAVE THE NET PROFIT TO RS. ( - ) 6,63,927/ - SET - OFF AGAINST THE INCOME. 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMEN T PETITION WAS FILED. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH RPAD ON 06/12/2018 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS RECEIVED CONFIRMING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NOTICE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND NON - APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS EXPORT TURNOVER N ONDORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (38 ITD 320) ( DEL), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2019. S D / - S D / - (A.K. GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 0 T H APRIL , 2019 . OKK, SR.PS 3 COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) 4. PR. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE