Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Agri Gold Farm Estates India Private ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Central ... on 8 February, 2019
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "B", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 1669 & 1670/Hyd/2018
Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15
Agri Gold Farm Estates India vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-
Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Hyd.
PAN - AADCA 9678C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 1671/Hyd/2018
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Agri Gold Foods and Farm vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-
Products Ltd., Hyderabad. tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Hyd.
PAN - AABCA 8733E
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Date of hearing : 01-02-2019
Date of pronouncement : 08-02-2019
O RDE R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
These appeals filed by assessees are directed against the orders of CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad, for AYs. 2013-14 & 2014-15
2. When these appeals were posted for hearing on 01/02/2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor the defects raised by the Registry were rectified though the notice has been served. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhttachargee & Anr., 2 ITA Nos. 1669 to 1671 /Hyd/2018 Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. and others 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, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by Hon'ble 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 these appeals of the assessee for want of prosecution.
3. Even on merits, the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 31/10/2013 admitting loss of Rs. 2,66,18,742/ - and admitting loss of Rs. 1,72,16,43,996/ - for AY 2014-15. The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 24,19,14,750/ - as against the originally returned loss of Rs. 2,66,18,742/ - for AY 2013- 14 and assessed the total income at Rs. 52,90,12,600/ - as against originally returned loss of Rs. 1,72,16,43,996/ - for AY 2014-15 by making some additions in both the years under consideration.
3.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed both the appeals.
3.2 In the case of Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Ltd., the AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 48,06,64,890/ - as against the returned income at Rs. Nil, by estimating the income at Rs. 15% of gross receipts.
3.3 On appeal, the CIT(A) partly allowed the ap peal of the assessee.
4. Since, there is no Representation from the assessee and the findings of the CIT(A) are uncontroverted, we uphold the order s of CIT(A) in all the appeals under consideration and dismiss the appeals of the assessees.
3ITA Nos. 1669 to 1671 /Hyd/2018 Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. and others
5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 8 th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 8 th February, 2019.
kv
Copy to:-
1) M/s Agri Gold Farm Estates India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products ltd., C/o M.V. Prasad, CA, D. No. 7-13, 4 th Line, Siddartha Nagar, Vijayawada - 520010
2) ITO, Ward - 12(3), Hyd..
3) CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad.
4) Pr. CIT(Central), Hyd.
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
6) Guard File