R.A.Alagara Raja, Bangalore V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 949/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4258 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 949 & 950/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI R.A. ALAGARA RAJA, BANGALORE [PAN: AFRPR8206D] VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : NONE FOR REVENUE : SMT. S. PRAVEENA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 05-10-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-10-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. : THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, BENGALURU, DATED 02-03-2018 FOR THE AY. 2003-04. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THESE APPEALS ON 05-10-201 8, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS ANY REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THESE APPEALS. 3. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR., [118 ITR 461] THAT APPE AL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSU ING IT I.T.A. NOS. 949 & 950/HYD/2018 :- 2 -: EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WAN T TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMI SS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF IND IA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (IN DIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR [223 ITR 480], WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. EVEN ON MERITS, THE AO ACCEPTED THE CAPITAL ON LIABI LITIES SIDE CORRESPONDING TO FIXED ASSETS & INVESTMENTS ON ASSET SI DE, AS THE SAME WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN REAL TERMS. THE BALANCE CAPITAL ON LIABILITIES SIDE AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,50,369/ - CORRESPONDING TO ADVANCES & CASH BALANCE ON ASSET SIDE, WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF THE SAME AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. 4.1. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271( 1)(C) AND LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 5,51,370/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4.2. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON TWO GROUNDS VIZ., THE APPEAL WAS NOT FILED ELECTRONICA LLY WHICH IS MANDATORY AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL WITH A DEL AY OF 124 DAYS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED REASONS FOR CONDON ATION OF DELAY, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED ON THE GROUND THAT REASONS GIVEN FOR DELAY ARE MERE ASSERTIONS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. I.T.A. NOS. 949 & 950/HYD/2018 :- 3 -: 5. SINCE, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSES SEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE UNCONTROVERTED, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMA N) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 10 TH OCTOBER, 2018 TNMM I.T.A. NOS. 949 & 950/HYD/2018 :- 4 -: COPY TO : 1. SHRI R.A. ALAGARA RAJA, H.NO. 185, 23 RD CROSS, 19 TH MAIN, KENCHANAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-3, BENGALURU. 4. PR.CIT-3, BENGALURU. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.