P Chandra Vardhan Reddy, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(4), Hyderabad

ITA 85/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1343 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A , HYDERABAD BEFORE S MT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S . RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 85 /HYD/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 14 - 15 P. CHANDRA VARDHAN REDDY, HYDERABAD. PAN A HTPR 2096P VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI PRABHAT KUMAR GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 0 9 - 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 7 - 0 9 - 201 8 O R D E R PER S . RIFAUR RAHMAN, A .M.: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF DATED 0 3 / 1 0 / 201 7 OF CIT(A) 7 , HYDERABAD, FOR AY 20 14 - 15 . 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON FIVE OCCASIONS FROM 16/03/2018 TO 27/07/2018 AND ON MOST OF THE OCCASIONS , THE ADJOURNMENTS TOOK PLACE DUE TO NON - APPEAR ANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING EXCEPT ON TWO OCCASIONS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 18/05/2018 AND 25/05/2018 RESPECTIVELY. WHEN THE APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 04 /0 9 /2018, FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE PARTIES, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE RE IS A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, 2 ITA NO. 85 /HYD/201 8 P. CHANDRA VARDHAN REDDY, HYD. COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBL E HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. EVEN ON MERITS, THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AT 5% OF THE COST OF GOODS SOLD DUE TO DEFECTIVE NATURE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS ETC. AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY TREATING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 28,35,498/ - AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS PROFITS AND RS. 1,00,000/ - BY DISALLOWING U/S 80C OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 4. SINCE, THER E IS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A ) ARE UNCONTROVERTED, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT ( A ) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH SEPTEMBER , 2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (S . RIFAUR RAHMAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 7 TH SEPTEMBER , 2 018. KV COPY TO: - 1) SHRI P. CHANDRA VARDHAN REDDY, NO. 17, AMULYA HOMES, NEAR SRI VASAVI SIVA NAGAR, KUSHAIGUDA, ECIL POST, HYDERABAD. 2) IT O , WARD 15( 4 ), HYD. 3) CIT(A) 7 , HYDERABAD. 4) PR. CIT 7 , HYD . 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERABAD. 6 ) GUARD FILE