"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.321/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 UP State Agro Industrial Corpn Ltd 22-Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow-226001. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-VI 3rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow, P.K. Complex, Lucknow-226001. PAN:AAACU2653G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 29 04 2025 Date of pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow dated 13.08.2020 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. (1) The Ld. C.I.T.(A)-II, Lko. erred on facts and in not admitting the ‘Revised Computation Chart’ submitted before Ld. A. O. in assessment proceeding showing income at Rs. 1,35,60,775/- instead of income shown in original return filed at Rs. 1,40,90,850/- as time limit for filing for Revised Return was expired, even this issue is covered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court. (2) The Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs. 2,49,210/- being ‘Prior Period Expenses’ as shown in compiled Profit and Loss Account, without appreciating that these expenses were determined / crystallized during the year only after due verification by Authorized ITA No.321/LKW/2020 Page 2 of 3 Officer and allowable during the year as per mercantile system of accounting. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE (3) The Ld. CLT. (A) while upholding addition of Rs. 2,49,210/- as ‘Prior Period Expenses’ had not allowed deduction for ‘Prior Period Income’ Rs. 1,00,334/- as the same is required to be deducted and net addition of Rs. 1,48,876/- ( Rs. 2,49,210.00 ~ Rs. 1,00,334.00) can only be upheld. (4) The additions upheld are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and Principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by him.” 2. It is seen from the records that no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Despite multiple opportunities have been given to the assessee but no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is also noticed that the Registry had issued a defect notice regarding appeal fee to be deposited in appropriate head. It is informed by the bench clerk that the aforesaid defect has not been removed by the assessee. Looking to the conduct of the assessee, it can be inferred that it is not interested to prosecute the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed being defective. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 30/04/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) ITA No.321/LKW/2020 Page 3 of 3 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File By order // True Copy// Assistant Registrar "