IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3124/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. METTACO ROLLING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, EMBASSY CENTRE, JAMNALAL BAJAJ ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI [PAN : AALCM7369L] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-7(2)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SONI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 31-01-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-02-2019 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS)-13, MUMBAI, DATED 02-02-2017 FOR THE AY . 2010-11. ITA NO. 3124/MUM/2018 : 2 : 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 31-01-2019. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE ADDR ESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 I.E. THE APPE AL MEMO. THE SAID NOTICE HAS COME BACK UN-SERVED WITH REMARKS INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS AND NOT KNOWN. NO NEW ADDRESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT POSSIBLE. NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THER E IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT FAC TS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR FOR TH E REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REGARDING COMPUTAT ION OF CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 15,27,019/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S. 144 R.W.S . 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). AO NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THAT IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND SUB SEQUENT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 142(1), ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NO T FILE ANY ITA NO. 3124/MUM/2018 : 3 : RETURN OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, P&L A/C OR COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME. HE ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SUBMITTED DEED OF CONVEYANCE FOR SALE OF LAND AND A COPY OF BANK S TATEMENT. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO AT PG. NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A NOTE STATING THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY W AS HAVING RE-ROLLING MILL AT HALOL IN GUJARAT AND THE SAM E HAS STOPPED ITS BUSINESS FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS. HE ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THERE WAS LAND PURCHASED BY THE COMPANY FOR FACTOR Y IN THE YEAR 1980-81, WHICH RAN ITS BUSINESS TILL AY. 1993 -94. THE PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD TO M/S. POLYCAB WIRES LTD., DUR ING FY. 2009-10 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15,27,019/-. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT VALUE OF LAND AS ON 01-04-2 010 WAS NIL AND ON THIS BASIS, HE ASSESSED THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. H E ALSO CONSIDERED THAT SECTION 41(2) OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT SUC H CAPITAL GAIN IS TO BE ASSESSED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA IN. AGAINST THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT(A). BUT IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF FOUR NOTICES DT. 1 4 TH SEPT. 2016, 30 TH SEPT. 2016, 13 TH OCT. 2016 AND 4 TH JAN. 2017, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDE R WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 02-02-2017 EX-PARTE QUA THE ITA NO. 3124/MUM/2018 : 4 : ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS NO SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F AO. RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ARE PARA NOS. 5 & 5.1, WHICH ARE RE-PRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY REFERE NCE: 5. DECISION I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE AOS ORDER, THERE BEING NO SUBMISSIONS FROM THE APPELLANTS SIDE. TH E AO HAS BROUGHT OUT ALL THE FACTS QUITE CLEARLY IN HIS ORDER. THE AO HAD IN HIS POSSESSION DETAILS OF THE SALE OF A PLOT OF LAND FO R RS. 15.07 LAKHS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER DETAILS, TAKING THE WDV OF THE IMPUGNED PLOT OF LAND AT NIL, THE AO HAD SOUGHT TO CHARGE TO TAX THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 15.07. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD NO BUSINESS RUNNING. THE AO HAD ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE SAID SALE CONSIDERATION AS THE PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSI NESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER DETAILS, THIS ACTION OF THE AO IS HERE BY AFFIRMED. 5.1 COMING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, GROUND NOS . 1 AND 3 HAVE AGITATED AGAINST THE SOLE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AS THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 3 ARE HER EBY DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 HAS PROTESTED THE INITIATION OF VARIOU S PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 271(1)(C), 271F AND 272B OF THE ACT. AS NO PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED IN THE ORDER UNDER APPE AL, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS BEING PREMATURE. 5.2 TO RECAPITULATE, ALL THE THREE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 5. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT NOTICE OF HEARING COULD N OT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT IS REPORTED BY THE P OSTAL DEPARTMENT THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS INSUFFIC IENT ADDRESS AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KNOWN AT THAT ADDRESS . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, I FIND NO ITA NO. 3124/MUM/2018 : 5 : REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). GROUN DS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI; /DATED : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2019 TNMM ITA NO. 3124/MUM/2018 : 6 : / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. ' ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. # $ ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. # $ / CIT, MUMBAI 5. '()*+ , #-*+#. , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. )/01 / GUARD FILE # / BY ORDER, ' //TRUE COPY// /# (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) #-*+#., / ITAT, MUMBAI