IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 1255/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Sushila Hospital Pvt. Ltd. ITO 10(1)(4) 35, B Tagore Nagar Vs. Mumbai. Vikroli East Mumbai-400 083. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAFCS5596P Assessee by None Department by Shri J. Saravanan Date of Hearing 4.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 4.10.2016 ORDER Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- appeal filed by assessee is directed against order dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2007- 08. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee even though notice of hearing was sent to assessee on three occasions, of which two notices were returned back by postal authorities. Since assessee has filed this appeal way back in 2012, we proceed to dispose of appeal ex parte, without presence of assessee. 3. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused record. We noticed that assessee has filed its return of income for year under consideration on 15.11.2007 declaring total income of ` 3,09,377/-. assessee did not appear before Assessing Officer and hence he completed assessment to best of his judgement u/s. 144 of I.T. Act by making following additions:- 2 Sushila Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. a) Depreciation ` 2,01,976/- b) Interest ` 3,32,494/- c) Credit card expenses ` 31,340/- d) Conveyance expenses ` 30,000/- 4. In appeal filed before learned CIT(A), first appellate authority noticed that assessee did not pay taxes due as per return of income. Hence he held that appeal of assessee cannot be admitted u/s. 249(4) of Act. assessee appears to have filed certain additional evidences, but learned CIT(A) refused to admit them by holding that assessee did not satisfy conditions prescribed under rule 46A of I T Rules. Accordingly he dismissed appeal filed by assessee. 5. Before us also, assessee did not furnish any evidence to show that he has paid tax due on returned income. Hence we are of view that learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeal on this legal point alone. Hence we do not find it necessary to adjudicate other issues. 6. In result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in Court on 4.10.2016 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMLAL NEGI) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 04/10/2016 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai Sushila Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, 10(1)(4), Mumbai