M/s Rama Krisha Dash, HUF, Ganjam V. ITO, Berhampur

ITA 299/CTK/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 29922114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK [ , . . , BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , J M & SHRI B.P.JAIN , A M ./ ITA NO. 299 / CTK /20 1 3 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 0 8 ) M/S RAMA KRISHNA DASH (HUF), M/S URMILA TRADERS, PURUSHOTTAMPUR, GANJAM VS. ITO, WARD - 2 , BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR (ORISSA) ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A GHR 0877 N ( / A PPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) [ /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K.NATH / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 ND MAY , 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT MA Y ,2015 / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (J.M) : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A ) , BERHAMPUR DATED 18 - 1 - 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 , INTER ALIA , ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IS TOTALLY ARBIT RARY & IT IS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. THUS IT MAY BE SET ASIDE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ACCOUNTING ASPECTS OF THE TRADER AND COMPUTED THE INCOME AS RS.4,62,500.00 WHICH SHOULD BE DELETED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED F OR HEARING ON 2 2 - 5 - 2015 , HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAR DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, WE H AVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX - PARTE . 3. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE IS DEFICIENCY OF TRIBUNAL FEES OF RS.2762/ - AND THE DEFECT IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ITA NO. 299 /1 3 2 COLUMN NO. 9. T HOUGH THE OFFICE HAS NOTIFIED THE DEFECT IN THE APPEAL TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMOVED THE DEFECT. MORE O VER, THE DEFICIENCY IN TRIBUNAL FEES HAS NOT BEEN MADE UP , THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADMITTED AND BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROPER TRIBUNAL FEES. 4 . WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM AND WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM AND SINCE NO INFIRMITY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THEREIN, WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26/05 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( B. P. JAIN ) ( ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 26/05 /2015 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT , CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//