SMT. SHALINI MITTAL, ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, ALWAR

ITA 492/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1599 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA JCIT DHK
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES B, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 492/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHALINI MITTAL, PROP.- M/S SHANTI TRADING CORPORATION, KEDAL GANJ, ALWAR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AJAPM 6616 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (AD CARD IS ON RECORD) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROSHANTA MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13/11/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/11/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2018 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR PASSED U/S 154 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) WAS WRONG AND UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPL ICATION FILED U/S 154 OF IT ACT. 2. THAT IN THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 154 OF IT ACT , FIVE APPARENT MISTAKES WERE BROUGHT IN THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT(A) B UT HE HAS GIVEN ONLY SINGLE VERDICT FOR ALL THE MISTAKES, WHICH IS WRONG, BAD IN LAW AND ALSO AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA 492/JP/2018_ SHALINI MITTAL VS ITO 2 YOUR HONOUR IS THEREFORE REQUESTED TO KINDLY DELIV ER THE SEPARATE VERDICT FOR EACH MISTAKE SEPARATELY. DETAILS ARGUME NT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING DESPITE THE NOTICE FOR THE DA TE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON RECO RD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RECEIVED THE NOTICE VICE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DA TED 04/10/2018 AND DESPITE THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, NONE HAS APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN F ILED. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECU TION OF THE APPEAL. SO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELH I BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 *RANJAN ITA 492/JP/2018_ SHALINI MITTAL VS ITO 3 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SHALINI MITTAL, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-2(2),ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 492/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR