MEHUL MUKESHKUMAR KADIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1347/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 March 2020AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the orders passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's consistent non-appearance and apparent lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee also did not appear before the ITAT for the hearing of their appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed on account of the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH&

For Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 17/02/2020Pronounced: 04/03/2020

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: These two instant appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders dated 27.03.2018 & 26.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15.

2.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal none appeared on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment has been sought for. Apart from that we find that in three occasions the appellant did not appears before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing. In fact, twice the matter were adjourned by the Ld. CIT(A) since none - 2 - Mehul Mukeshkumar Kadiya vs. DCIT A.Ys. 2013-14&2014-15 appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was sought for. In the third occasion a notice for hearing served upon the assessee was returned back with a postal endorsement ‘left’. Having no other alternative, the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the matter ex-parte. Thus, it practically appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the matter. Hence, we find it fit and proper to confirm the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) impugned before us. We pass orders accordingly.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →