Mr. Dhirendra Shankar Bajpai , Lucknow V. Income Tax Officer , Barabanki

ITA 247/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75135 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.247/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 MR. DHIRENDRA SHANKAR BAJPAI, M/S D. S. COMPANY, MANJPURWA, GWARI ROAD, BARABANKI. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI. PAN: AHWPB3211B (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 21.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22. 01 .2014 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 23/01/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY. 2. THAT THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.180000/ - OUT OF RENT ACCOUNTS. 3. THAT THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF RS.439570/ - . 4. THAT THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE NOT JUST IFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.10000/ - OUT OF CAR EXPENSES & DEPRECIATION, OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES. 5. THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. : - 2 - : 6. THAT THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE N OT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING INTEREST. 7. THAT THE LEANED COURT BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN INITIATION PENALTY PROCEEDING U /S 271 (1) ( C). 2. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 21.01.2014, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT 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 ISS UES IN DETAIL IN THE LIGHT 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). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/01/20 14 . SD/. [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/ 01/2014 *C.L. SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR