M/S R.B.CHEMICALS, MUMBAI V. ITO - 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2554/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3761 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2554 /MUM/201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 0 - 20 0 1) M/S. R.B. CHEMICALS C/O. SHANKARLAL JAIN & ASSOCIATES, 12, ENGINEER BUILDING, 265, PRINCESS STREET, MUMBAI 400 002. VS. ITO, WARD - 12(3)(2), MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO.AA AFR7059Q ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B.S. BIST (SR. DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .03.2016 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06 - 02 - 2013 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 21, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDING. THE ASSE SSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IT RECEIVED 2 M/S. R.B. CHEMICALS ITA NO. 2554/MUM/2013 COMPENSATION OF RS.24.19 LAKHS. AGAINST THE SAID COMPENSATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS.12.68 LAKHS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE TEXTILE BUSINESS. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS RELATING TO THE LOSS CLAIMED, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME. HENCE THE AO DISALLOWED THE LOSS AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE TH E ISSUE AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE DETAILS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND HENCE THE AO PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 254 OF THE AC T BY DISALLOWING THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LD CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH RELEVANT DETAILS AND HENCE HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE NOTICE THAT THE SPECI FIC DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER ORDER WAS TO FURNISH RELEVANT DETAILS TO THE AO, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THEM BOTH BEFORE THE AO AND LD CIT(A). THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE ANY CLAIM LIES UPON THE AS SESSEE AND WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE SAID BURDEN. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 1 . 0 3.2016. S D / - S D / - (RAM LAL NEGI) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 0 1 / 0 3/2016 *SSL* 3 M/S. R.B. CHEMICALS ITA NO. 2554/MUM/2013 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) 4) CIT 5) DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI