sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Smt. Ina Jayesh Mehta A/3, Aditya Park, C.S. Road Dahisar (E), Mumbai 400068 Vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1) Mumbai
June, 29th 2015
                           "I" Bench, Mumbai

                 Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President
                and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member

                          ITA No. 3075/Mum/2013
                          (Assessment Year: 2009-10)

       Smt. Ina Jayesh Mehta             Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1)
       A/3, Aditya Park, C.S. Road   Vs. Mumbai
       Dahisar (E), Mumbai 400068
                             PAN - AAOPM3451B
                 Appellant                      Respondent

                    Appellant by:     None
                    Respondent by:    Shri Love Kumar

                    Date of Hearing:       16.06.2015
                    Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2015


Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by
CIT(A)-35, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2009-10. Notice sent to the
assessee at the address given in Form No. 36 was returned unserved with
the postal remarks "Left". Assessee did not furnish change of address, if any.
Under the circumstances we proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte, qua

2.     Assessee raised the following grounds without prejudice to each

     1) That the learned CIT(A) has not passed order based on the submission
        made by appellant in true and positive manner and has passed
        impugned order;
     2) That the learned CIT(A) has not given any authority nor examined issue
        on the direction to be provided to the learned Assessing Officer for
        providing document and thereby in violation of the law laid down by
        the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Surajmal Mohta & Co. V/s
        A.V. Vishwanatha Sastri (1954) (26 ITR 1 SC) has passed the
        impugned order;
     3) That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the facts with regards to
        passing of the order Under Section 143(3) without any evidences and
                                          2                  ITA No. 3075/Mum/2013
                                                               Smt. Ina Jayesh Mehta

          thereby without providing reasons rejected audited books of accounts
          and passed the impugned order;
     4)   That the learned CIT(A) fails to consider Para No. 37 of instruction
          dated 25th October, 2005 of CBDT and without justifiable reasons with
          a speaking order of Hon. CIT-XIII, Mumbai, the learned Assessing
          Officer has passed Order has been ignored;
     5)   That the learned CIT(A) has not properly determined the net profit nor
          provided comparable sums of assessee to justify the profit for Appellant
          and passed the impugned order;
     6)   That the learned CIT(A) failed to considered the provisions of section 33
          and Order XX of the Civil Procedure Code read with the law and
          passed of judgement with speaking order and with justifying the facts
          and passed impugned Order;
     7)   That the learned CIT(A) has passed the order which is having lack of
          inherent jurisdiction nullity to bind the Appellant."

3.        Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. Assessee
is engaged in the business of chemical products. In respect of the previous
year relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 assessee declared total income of `9,74,090/-.
The return of income having been selected for scrutiny the AO called for
records and examined the same to enable him to complete the assessment.
During the assessment proceedings AO issued notice under section 133(6) of
the Act to various parties listed out in the assessment order and also
brought it to the notice of the assessee but on the part of the assessee, she
did not produce any documentary evidence about the existence of the
parties, i.e. she did not obtain confirmation letters. Assessee did not even
sign the ledger accounts, etc. On account the carelessness on the part of the
assessee in furnishing documentary evidence the AO proceeded to add back
the entire sales amount as income of the assessee (AO treated the same as
bogus sales). AO had also issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to
the parties from whom she has made purchases. Assessee did not produce
the ledger account or filed confirmation letters. The AO reduced the same
from the trading account, which would automatically result in enhancement
of net profit of the assessee. In other words, the AO concluded that the
assessee made bogus purchases and bogus sales.

4.        Aggrieved, assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the assessment
order is vitiated because he has not followed the principles of natural
justice. She quoted the legal maxim "experessio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius"
                                      3                  ITA No. 3075/Mum/2013
                                                           Smt. Ina Jayesh Mehta

which means that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that manner and recourse to other
manner is not allowed. It was submitted that though the case was said to
have been selected for scrutiny after obtaining approval from the CCIT,
Mumbai, copy of the said order was not provided to the assessee, which
clearly proves that the assessment order is prima facie false and frivolous.
She also challenged the issuance of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1)
of the Act on the ground that the date of service of notice, mode of service
and content therein are not provided and thus the assessment is bad in law.
It is further contended that notices under section 133(6) have been issued to
the parties to whom sales were made and it was alleged by the AO that no
copies of the sale invoices, etc. were furnished. In the instant case assessee
was not permitted to be represented by an Advocate and hence the
assessment order was bad in law. She also challenged charging of interest,
disallowance of claim under section 80C, etc.

5.    The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee has not furnished evidence of
payment of institution fees and failed to produce the original challan towards
payment of appeal fees. Therefore the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

6.    Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before us. None appeared for the
assessee. No material was placed on record to prove that assessee has paid
institution fees to enable her to file an appeal before the CIT(A). Under these
circumstances we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was justified in
dismissing the appeal as unadmitted for want of following the procedures
prescribed under section 249 of the Act.

7.    In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2015.

                Sd/-                                     Sd/-
           (Sanjay Arora)                          (D. Manmohan)
        Accountant Member                           Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 26th June, 2015
                                      4                 ITA No. 3075/Mum/2013
                                                          Smt. Ina Jayesh Mehta

Copy to:

   1.   The Appellant
   2.   The Respondent
   3.   The CIT(A) ­ 35, Mumbai
   4.   The CIT­ 25, Mumbai City
   5.   The DR, "I" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                     By Order

//True Copy//
                                                  Assistant Registrar
                                          ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions ERP Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions ERP Software Solutions Supply Chain Management Solutions SCM Solutions Supply Chain Management Software Solutions SCM Software Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions India ERP Solutions India Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions India ERP Software Solutions India Supply Chain Management Solutions India SCM Solutions India Supply Chain Management Software Solutions India SCM Software Solutions India

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions