Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Spanco Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cc 8, Mumbai on 24 January, 2018
'E', मुंबई ।
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES "E", MUMBAI Before Shri Saktijit Dey, JM and Shri Manjunatha G, AM ITA No.6024/Mum/2014 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/s.Spanco Limited The Commissioner of Income-tax 8th Floor, Godrej Coliseum Vs. Central Circle - 8 Off Eastern Express Highway Mumbai.
Sion, Mumbai - 400 022.
PAN : AAACK9555D.
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से /Appellant by : --- None --- यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri V.Justin, DR ु वाई क तार ख / सन घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 23.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018.
आदे श / O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM) :
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.07.2014 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -37, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010-2011.
2. Briefly the facts are the assessee, a company, filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 21.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.35,29,59,018. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 27.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs.79,98,76,170. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) determining the total income at Rs.81,94,07,150. The enhancement in income determined by the Assessing Officer was 2 ITA No.6024/Mum/2014 M/s.Spanco Limited.
due to disallowance of Rs.1,95,30,980 u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned first appellate authority. In the course of hearing of appeal, the learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has not paid self-assessment tax of Rs.18,28,18,253 even after completion of assessment and during the appellate proceedings. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-payment of self-assessment tax. Since, the assessee failed to pay the admitted tax liability and offer any valid explanation for non- payment of tax even three years after the filing of return, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine u/s 249(4) of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee is before us. When the appeal was called for hearing no-one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. It is seen from record that on earlier occasions also the assessee never appeared to represent its case. Thus, it is evident that the assessee is very casual in its approach and not interested in pursuing the present appeal. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative.
5. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the materials on record. As could be seen due to non-payment of self-assessment tax even after considerable lapse of time the first 3 ITA No.6024/Mum/2014 M/s.Spanco Limited.
appellate authority dismissed the assessee's appeal u/s 249(4) of the Act. Nothing has been brought before us to demonstrate payment of unpaid self-assessment tax even as on date. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal u/s 249(4) of the Act. Ground raised is dismissed.
6. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 24th day of January, 2018.
आदे श क घोषणा दनांकः को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manjunatha G) (Saktijit Dey)
लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या!यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
मंब
ु ई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 24th January, 2018. Devdas* आदे श क "!त$ल%प अ&े%षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु)त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयु)त / CIT(A)-37 , Mumbai
5. 'वभागीय (त(न-ध, आयकर अपील य अ-धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड1 फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स या'पत (त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई / ITAT, Mumbai