M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,BHILWARA vs. ITO (TDS), BHILWARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 42/JODH/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 March 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide a valid address. The merger of the assessee bank was also noted as a contributing factor.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to attend the hearings, and notices were returned unserved. The assessee's bank had also merged with another bank without updating the appeal form.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal. The appeal also involved additions made under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Respondent: Shri S.M.Joshi, JCIT DR
Hearing: 22/03/2023

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 26.11.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld.AO which is bad in law, bad on facts and in law in confirming an addition is not justified.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.542790/- u/s 201(1) and Rs.483779/- u/s 201(1A) is not justified and bad in law.

3. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal

on or before its hearing before your honour.

4. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.”

2.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is also seen from the record that no one has been attending the proceedings since 02.05.2019 on behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing has been returned back unserved by the Postal Authority with remark “no such person in this address”. Therefore, under these facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and disposed off on the material available on record.

3.

We have heard Ld. JCIT DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee has not furnished any other address for communication. Moreover, it is seen that as per Form No.36, name of the assessee is M/s Oriental Bank of Commerce. However, the Oriental Bank of Commerce has been merged with “Punjab National Bank”. No effort has been made to modify Form No.36. Under these facts, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby, dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →