,   "" 
   IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI

    BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM)
      .. ,        ,                                  

                    ./I.T.A. No.302/Mum/2013
                 (   / Assessment Year :2009-10)

 M/s Chandulal Mehta and Co.,     / Income Tax Officer-5(1)(3),
 Pvt. Ltd.,                       Vs. Mumbai.
 9/15/MAMA Paramanand Marg,
 Gardi Mansion, Opera House,
 Mumbai-400004
        ( /Appellant)              ..     (    / Respondent)


         . /   . /PAN/GIR No. :AAACC1520C

               / Appellant by            None
                /Rspondent by            Shri Premanand J


            / Date of Hearing                 :   25.6.2015
            /Date of Pronouncement : 25.6.2015

                                / O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM)

      The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order     dated
6.11.2012 passed by Ld CIT(A)-9, Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10
on the following issues:-
      (a)     Addition of Rs.38.50 lakhs made u/s 68 of the Act.
      (b)     Addition made out of business promotion and entertainment
              expenses;
      (c)     Addition made out of electricity charges;
      (d)     Addition made out of repairs and maintenance expenses;
      (e)     Addition made out of interest expenses;
      (f)     Addition made out of other expenses; and
                                     2                   I T A N o . 3 0 2 / Mu m / 2 0 1 3



      (g)   Interest charged u/s 234B of the Act.







2.      Though the appeal was filed way back in January, 2013, none
appeared on behalf of the assessee on two occasions namely on 14.7.2014
and 21.1.2015. Hence, notice was sent to the assessee by Registered
post AD. Subsequently, when the hearing was posted on 22.4.2015, the
assessee filed a letter dated 21.4.2015 seeking adjournment. Accordingly,
the case was posted for hearing today. However, none appeared on behalf
of the assessee and hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte,
without the presence of the assessee.







3.    We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We have gone through
the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) on the above said issues. We notice that
the assessee did not file any document before us to contradict the findings
given by the first appellate authority. Under these set of facts, we do not
find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on all the issues
referred above. Accordingly, we confirm his order.


4.   In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
            Pronounced accordingly on 25th June, 2015.
                                          25th June, 2015    

  Sd                                      sd
(    / AMIT SHUKLA)                   (..  / B.R. BASKARAN)
     / JUDICIAL MEMBER                  / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 Mumbai: 25th June,2015.

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
                            3               I T A N o . 3 0 2 / Mu m / 2 0 1 3



        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.      / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.      / CIT concerned
5.      ,     ,  /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.

                                             / BY ORDER,
True copy
                                       (Asstt. Registrar)
                                    ,  /ITAT, Mumbai