M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5532/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 553220114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 5532(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S PANWAR ROSHIN & TURPENTINE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CO. LTD., E-191, RISHI NAGAR, VS. WARD 14(1), SHAKUR BASTI, NEW DELHI. NE W DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. D.R DATE OF HEARIN G: 13.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 13.12.2011. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP SIX GR OUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER ON MECHANI CAL BASIS WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNITY, APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6). 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES WITHOUT RECORDING ANY SPECIFIC FINDIN G. 3. THAT THE CLAIM OF PURCHASE IS FULLY SUPPORTED AND VERIFIABLE AND THERE IS NO VALID BASIS FOR ADDITION OF RS. 2,75 ,000/-. 4. THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE ALSO NOT JUSTIF IED IN ALLOWING 50% CLAIM OF EXPENSES ON GENERAL AND ARBITRARY BASIS . ITA NO. 5532(DEL)/2010 2 5. THAT PURCHASES AND CLAIM OF EXPENSES BEING ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY PRE SUMPTION OR ADVERSE INFERENCE RELATING TO CORRECTNESS AND GENUINENESS OF CLAIM. 6. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 08.12.2010 WHEN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT- CUM-NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE BEARER UNDER WHICH THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10.02.2011. NONE ATTENDED ON T HAT DATE. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 07.10.2011 WAS SERVED ON T HE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE OFFICIAL COURIER, FIXING THE HEARING ON 13.12.20 11. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON THIS DATE, NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THEREFORE, IT IS HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE APPEAL IS LIKELY TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE, IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320(DEL) A ND ESTATE OF LATE TUKAJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). IT IS HELD ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (K.G. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA ITA NO. 5532(DEL)/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- PANWAR ROSHIN &TURPENTINE CO. LTD. , NEW DELHI. ITO, WARD 14(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.