, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.2891/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 VIJAY KUMAR R SHETTY, 21, RADHA BHAVAN, 471, ADENWALA ROAD, KINGS CIRCLE, MUMBAI-400019 / VS. ITO-18(2)(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AAETS1712R $ % & / ASSESSEE BY NONE $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI V.S. JADHAV-DR / DATE OF HEARING 14/01/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 15/01/2016 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26/09/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, ON THE GROUNDS AS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.2891/MUM/2015 VIJAY KUMAR R. SHETTY 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT REGISTERED AD NOTICE WAS SENT ON 13/12/2015 TO THE ASSESSEE FO R HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 14/01/2016 AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH TH E REMARK LEFT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE REGISTERED NOT ICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED IN COLUMN-1 0 OF FORM NO.36 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITIO N, THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE , QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR, SHRI V.S. JADHAV, DEFENDED T HE ADDITION SUSTAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ADDED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT ED THAT THIS APPEAL IS BARRED BY TIME FOR 122 DAYS IN FILIN G THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF, THEREFORE, THER E IS NO QUESTION OF CONSIDERING THE DELAY ,CONSEQUENTLY, TH E APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT EVEN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO NOTE D EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED PURSUANT TO DIRECTI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . IN SPITE OF THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN B EFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSES SEE DID ITA NO.2891/MUM/2015 VIJAY KUMAR R. SHETTY 3 NOT APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND ULTIMATELY, THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON MERIT. SIMILAR IS THE SITUATION, BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AP PEAR. IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE HABITUAL ABSENTEE, THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. THIS APPEAL CA NNOT BE KEPT PENDING INDEFINITELY AS THERE IS NO RESPONSE F ROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE REGISTERED AD NOTICE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.2. SO FAR AS, THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNE D, I HAVE ANALYZED EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION IN WHICH NO INFIRMITY IS NOTICED AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS CASE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED EVEN ON MERIT ALSO. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 14/01/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 15/01/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.2891/MUM/2015 VIJAY KUMAR R. SHETTY 4 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI