KISHORE DUBEY, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 6142/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75816 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI , / ! ! ! ! ' . . # . . !$ , % BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO. 6142/MUM/2009 $& $& $& $& !'& !'& !'& !'& / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 KISHORE DUBEY 3, SATWANT VILLA, AAREY ROAD GOREGAON (W) MUMBAI-400 062 $ $ $ $ / VS. ITO 24(3)(1) NAVI MUMBAI. ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() / RESPONDENT) PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :- AABPD 7612 E $&,- . / ASSESSEE BY : NONE ! / . / REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN 0 / O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI DATED 23.07.2009 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,44,685/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,43,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 3. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE HEARING OF THE CASE AND WE THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.DR AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE TIME BARRED BY 22 DAYS AND IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE VIDE L ETTER DATED 06.01.2009 HAS FILED A $! / - / DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2014 12' / - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.02.2014 ITA NO. 6142/MUM/2009 KISHORE DUBEY. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 2 CONDONATION APPLICATION EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL STATING THAT HIS MOTHER HAS EXPIRED IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 2009 AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED A MASSIVE HEAR ATTAC K ON 14.11.2009. CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME, WE CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND PROCEED TO DECI DE THE APPEAL. 4. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDING THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 ON THE BASIS OF MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS HAS NEITHER BEEN RESPONDED TO NOR ANY ONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. CONSEQUE NTLY, THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT AD HOC DISALLOWANCE O F EXPENSES BEING 50% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AND DISALLOWANCE OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,45,000/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I.E. LD.CIT(A ), AGAIN THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AGAIN ST THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO. ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITI ON OF RS.1,45,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO. IN THE FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.02.2012, AGAIN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE THE SAID APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2012 FOR NON PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL. THEREAFTER, IN VIEW OF T HE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.03.201 2 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL PASSED AN ORDER ON 01.02.2013 RECALLING TH E EARLIER EX-PARTE ORDER SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD PAY RS.500 0/- AS COST TO THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE SAID COST TO THE REVENUE AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THIS HEARING ALSO, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE DIS ALLOWANCE TO 25% AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% MADE BY THE AO DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) NOR COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 6142/MUM/2009 KISHORE DUBEY. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 3 ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,45,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNSECURED LOAN, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER BEFO RE THE AO/CIT(A, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) . CONSIDERING THE E NTIRE FACTUAL MATRIX WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UP HELD. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 0 / 12' 3$ 26 TH 4! , 201 4 2 / 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( / RAJENDRA ) ( ' ' ' ' . . # # # # . . !$ !$ !$ !$ / DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER /MUMBAI, 3$ /DATED: 26.02.2014. $ . ./ P.S.*SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: () / THE APPELLANT *+() / THE RESPONDENT 7 8 / THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI 7 8 / THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 9!:5 *-$ /THE DR D BENCH 5 & ; / GUARD FILE. +9- *- //TRUE COPY// 0$ / BY ORDER < / = DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, MUMBAI.