Shri. Lakshmipathi.N, Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 853/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7704 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P MEENAKSHI JT
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.853/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI LAKSHMIPATHI N., OLD NO.93, NEW NO.14, 3 RD CROSS, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU 560 021. PAN: AATPN 4375N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. P. MEENAKSHI, JT.CIT(DR)(ITAT) DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2015 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), BENGALURU 2, BENG ALURU INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER WHICH SHE DID. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION MADE BY AO TOWARDS CAPITAL INTRODUCED TO THE PROPRI ETARY CONCERN. ITA NO.853/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HAT THE APPELLANT RECEIVED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND O UT OF THE SAVINGS THE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SAME. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT TO HAVE ALLO WED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE DISALLOWANCE ADDITION AS CONFIRMED ARE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED IN TOTO. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INT EREST U/S. 234B OF THE ACT. 7. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE UR GED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS T HAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED T HAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE. ACCORDINGLY, I H AVE NO OPTION, BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE . 3. I HAVE, HOWEVER, CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND I FIND N O INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS REJECT ED. ITA NO.853/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 2 ND AUGUST, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.