SUBHADRA ATMARAM MOKASHE, PUNE V. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

ITA 7457/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8829 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 7457/M/13 SMT. SUBHADARA ATMARAM MOKASHE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7457/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SMT. SUBHADRA ATMARAM MOKASHE FLAT NO. 6/2B, DHANRAJ COMPLEX, NEAR ASHOK THEATRE PIMPRI PUNE -411017. PAN: ATSPM1044K VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 39 MUMBAI-400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI B. S. BIST ( DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.01.2017 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL U/S 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-39, MUMBAI DATED 27.09.2013 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: I. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER. II. THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE PRESENT APPEAL CAME UP HEARING ON 16.01.2017. N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE PASSING OVER THE CASE. WE HAVE FUR THER NOTICED THAT NOTICE SENT TO ASSESSEE BY RPAD WAS RETURNED BACK AS THE SAME WAS REFUSED BY ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND FIND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C WAS PASSED ON 29.12.2010. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,18,479/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ADDITION 2 ITA NO. 7457/M/13 SMT. SUBHADARA ATMARAM MOKASHE WAS CONFIRMED. HENCE, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A), THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. DR FO R THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND WOULD ARGUE THAT DESPITE G IVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY LD. CIT(A), NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HER REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATED HER CLAIM BY FILING DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSE E NOT ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING DESPITE GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITY BY LD. CIT(A ). EVEN BEFORE US NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HER REPRESENTATIVE CAME TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDING. NO DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM OR DEFENCE IS FILED BEFORE U S. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE. THUS, WE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 16/01/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/