P. Srinivasan v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai
[Citation -2019-LL-0917-77]

Citation 2019-LL-0917-77
Appellant Name P. Srinivasan
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai
Court ITAT-Chennai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/09/2019
Assessment Year 1999-00
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags adequate opportunity • undisclosed income • ex-parte assessment • non-genuine loan • service of notice • absence of evidence
Bot Summary: PAN: ABEPS3121R/703S, Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.D.Divahar, JCIT, D.R , Date of Hearing : 17.09.2019 ,Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2019 ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Chennai in IT Appeal No.100/2002- 03 dated 30.10.2002 for the assessment year 1999-2000. None represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.D.Divahar represented on behalf of the Revenue. The Stay Petition was posted on various dates and subsequently the assessee was granted early hearing and Stay Petition had been dismissed. The assessee had filed Writ Petition before the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras against the order of the Tribunal in the Stay Petition and vide order dated 09.12.2003 and the Hon ble High Court of Madras had called for the original records. The appeal of assessee is being disposed off on merits. The only issue in the assessee s appeal is against the exparte assessment done and the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the loan of Rs.70,000/- received from various creditors as not genuine, also the addition of Rs.1,94,700/- treated as undisclosed income of assessee. CIT(A), nor before us, the assessee has produced any evidence to rebut the additions made by the Assessing Officer.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA No.291/Chny/2003 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri P.Srinivasan, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 110,Poonamallee High Road, Income Tax, Velappanchavadi,Chennai 77. Central Circle-II(2), Chennai-34. [PAN: ABEPS3121R/703S] (Appellant) (Respondent), Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.D.Divahar, JCIT, D.R , Date of Hearing : 17.09.2019 ,Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2019 ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is appeal filed by assessee against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai in IT Appeal No.100/2002- 03 dated 30.10.2002 for assessment year 1999-2000. 2. None represented on behalf of Assessee and Mr.D.Divahar represented on behalf of Revenue. ITA No.291/Chny/2003 :- 2 -: 3. This appeal was filed by assessee on 13.02.2003 and Stay Petition No.365/Mds./2003 was filed by assessee on 09.10.2003 before this Tribunal. Stay Petition was posted on various dates and subsequently assessee was granted early hearing and Stay Petition had been dismissed. assessee had filed Writ Petition before Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras against order of Tribunal in Stay Petition and vide order dated 09.12.2003 and Hon ble High Court of Madras had called for original records. Hon ble High Court of Madras vide Order dated 19.07.2017 had closed Writ Petition by giving liberty to petitioner to work-out his remedies on merits in accordance with law, if still need arises. This was in respect of Stay Petition. appeal file folder also came to be returned to Tribunal. 3.1 appeal had been posed for hearing by issuance of notice, on 16.09.2019 and acknowledgement of service is also available. As none represented on 16.09.2019, appeal was posted for hearing on 17.09.2019. Even today, when matter came for hearing, none represented. Consequently, appeal of assessee is being disposed off on merits. 4. only issue in assessee s appeal is against exparte assessment done and action of Assessing Officer in treating loan of Rs.70,000/- received from various creditors as not genuine, also addition of Rs.1,94,700/- treated as undisclosed income of assessee. ITA No.291/Chny/2003 :- 3 -: 5. We have heard submissions of ld.DR, and perused material available on record. perusal of order of ld. CIT(A) shows that assessee has challenged action of Assessing Officer by saying that adequate opportunity had not been given. ld.CIT(A) also verified records and has held that adequate opportunity had been given to assessee. It is noticed that before Assessing Officer, nor before ld.CIT(A), nor before us, assessee has produced any evidence to rebut additions made by Assessing Officer. This being so, in absence of any evidence being produced, findings of ld.CIT(A) on this issue is found to be on right footing and consequently, appeal of assessee stands dismissed. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court after conclusion of hearing on 17th September, 2019 in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, 3 Dated: 17th September, 2019. K S Sundram , Copy to: 1. Appellant 3. CIT(A) 5. DR 2.Respondent 4. CIT 6. GF P. Srinivasan v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai
Report Error