RAMANLAL K DARJI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7103/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0328 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SMC BENCHES , MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J UDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO . 7103 /MUM/20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 0 6 RAMANLAL K DARJI, SH AKTI STEEL CORPORATION, 2601, RUSHABH APARTMENT, DR. PAREKH ROAD, OPP. RELIANCE HOSPITAL, MUMBAI 400 004 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 19 ( 3 )( 1 ), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400020 ( /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO. AAAPD 7791 D / ASSESSEE BY NONE / REVENUE BY MS. N. HEMALATHA - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12 /0 2 /201 8 / DATE OF ORDER : 12 /0 2 /201 8 / O R D E R THE ASSESSE E IS AGGRIEVED B Y THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15 /01 /201 4 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RAMANLAL K DARJI ITA NO. 7103/MUM/2016 2 MUMBAI ON THE GROUND S CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN GPF OF RS. 6,57,560/ - @ 3.06% ON THE QUANTUM SALES FOR RS. 1,80,64,000/ - ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTIONS AND ON ESTIMATION . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN A GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 965 DAYS . 2. DURING HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE . IT IS NOTED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 05/12/2016 AND ON 15/02/2017, ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJ OUR N ED . ON 18/05/2017 , AGAIN T HE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 13/07/2017 AND THE DATE WAS DU LY NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON 28/12/2017, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE DATE WAS DULY NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENCED FROM THE ENDORSEMENT O N THE ORDER SHEET. TODAY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR SOUGHT ANY ADJOURNMENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY , THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OPTION B UT TO PROCEED EX - PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3 . IT IS NOTED THAT BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO , NOBODY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN TH OUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL ALSO , THERE IS A DELAY OF 965 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL . THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENT HIMSELF NOR RAMANLAL K DARJI ITA NO. 7103/MUM/2016 3 MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION , THEREFO R E, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS UN - ADMITTE D. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . T HIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. DR AT T H E CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 12 /0 2 /201 8 . SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBA I; DATED : 12 /02 /201 8 VR. S. P.S/. . . / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A) - , MUMBAI 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI