SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI V. ITO 26(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2487/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0065 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2487/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MR. SUDHAKAR S. SHETTY, 103, SHANTI COMPLEX, E-WING, SAKINAKAR ROAD, POWAI, MUMBAI 400 072 PAN: AMDPS 5085L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE - 26(3)(3), MUMBAI BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 050 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI B.S. BIST, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2014 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE DID N OT REMAIN PRESENT. THEREFORE, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R., I HAVE DISPOSED THIS APPEAL EX-PARTE ON MERITS. 3. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.07 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,6 1,410/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) FOUND T HAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,81,623/-. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE H AS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS REGARDING THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATIO N WAS DISALLOWED. ITA NO.2487/M/2017 MR. SUDHAKAR S. SHETTY 2 4. SIMILARLY, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE DID N OT REMAIN PRESENT. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.23,39,733/-, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AN D THE LD. CIT(A). SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES, NO DETAI LS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DI SMISSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO. 5. BEFORE ME ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRES ENT AND DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXC EPT TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.06.2017. SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMB ER MUMBAI, DATED: 21.06.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.