Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
J V Phanindra Reddy, Hyderabad, ... vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad, ... on 9 December, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. Asst. Year Appellant Respondent
580/Hyd/16 2007-08 Sri J.V. Phanindra Deputy
581/Hyd/16 2008-09 Reddy, Commissioner of
582/Hyd/16 2009-10 HYDERABAD Income Tax,
583/Hyd/16 2012-13 [PAN: AEMPJ2559K] Central Circle-2(1)
(erstwhile Circle-3)
HYDERABAD
For Assessee : NONE
For Revenue : Shri A. Sitarama Rao, DR
Date of Hearing : 23-11-2016
Date of Pronouncement : 09-12-2016
ORDER
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :
These four appeals are by assessee against the order(s) of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, dated 18-12-2015 for AYs. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13. As stated by assessee in the statement of facts, search and seizure operations took place in the residence of assessee on 08-12-2011. Returns of income were filed u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act [Act] for the respective assessment years, whereas the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions on account of income from consultancy charges, unexplained cash credits and Short Term Capital Gains etc. Aggrieved by the additions made by the AO, assessee preferred the appeals before the CIT(A)-12. Assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) due to certain personal reasons as stated, beyond his control and as such Ld.CIT(A) concluded the appeals ex-parte, confirming the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order(s) of the Ld.CIT(A), the present appeals are preferred.
:- 2 -: Sri J.V. Phanindra Reddy
2. The appeals are defective and the Registry has noted that the respondent column was shown wrongly, the challan was paid under wrong head and orders of CIT / assessment orders are not enclosed and Column No. 11 in the appeal forms were also wrongly filled. In fact the Ld.CIT(A) was taken as respondent in Column 11. In view of those defects noticed, assessee was issued notices cum acknowledgement asking assessee to rectify the memo of appeals. The case was posted as defective on 17-08-2016, on which date none were present on behalf of assessee. Again, notices were sent by RPAD posting the case on 23-11-2016. Again, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor there is any petition for adjournment either by assessee or by his representative, if any. Since the appeal memos are defective, the same also require rectification before taking up the appeals on merit. No steps were taken for rectifying the defects even. Since assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served if the case is posted again as two opportunities were clearly given, even to rectify the appeals and the cases are listed under the head defective appeals posted for dismissal.
3. Further, no evidence was placed on record in the form of Paper Books to counter the observations of the CIT(A) and the same grounds as raised before him were raised before this forum also. Since assessee has not appeared or furnished any evidence, we are of the opinion that the findings of the CIT(A) cannot be disturbed at present. In case assessee furnishes sufficient reasons why he could not appear, then order can be recalled. Subject to that, the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.
:- 3 -: Sri J.V. Phanindra Reddy
4. In the result, all the appeal memos of assessee are treated as defective and dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th December, 2016 Sd/- Sd/-
(D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 9th December, 2016 TNMM Copy to :
1.Sri J.V. Phanindra Reddy, Plot No. C-7, Rolling Hills, Near Ramky Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Erstwhile Circle-3, Hyderabad.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad.
4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
5. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File.