NARAYAN H LADHA, MUMBAI V. CIT 24,

ITA 394/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0505 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 394 /MUM/ 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) SHRI NARAYAN H. LADHA 159 - 160, MALAD SHOPPING CENTRE, S.V. ROAD MALAD WEST MUMBAI 400 064. VS. CIT - 24 MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAAPL2306C ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY S HRI RAHUL RAMAN DATE OF HEARING 2 3 .5 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 . 5 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.3.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT - 24, MUMBAI U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE NOTICED THAT THE REVISION ORDER WAS PASSED BY LEARNED CIT ON 26.3.3013 BUT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 27.1.2016. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS, WE NOTICE THAT THE SAME IS NOT REASONABLE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT PROPERLY. DATE OF CO MMUNICATION OF ORDER APPEALED AGAINST HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED INCORRECTLY. WE NOTICED THAT THE 2 DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CORRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL DATE . HENCE THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4. ON MER ITS, WE NOTICED THAT THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY LEARNED CIT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS AGRE ED WITH LEARNED CIT WITH REGARD TO THE DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY LEA RNED CIT AND IN EFFECT, AGREE D WITH THE REVISION ORDER. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 . 5 . 201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 2 3 / 5 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE A PPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI