PARESH JAYANTIBHAI PAREKH,MEHMADABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4, NADIAD

Both the captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of assessees against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara, (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 22.03.2018 & 23.03.2018 arising in the penalty orders both dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs. 2009- 10 & 2010-11.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Case files reveal that the Registry has already sent an RPAD notice dated 28.10.2019 to assessee. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of both cases, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee or petition seeking time, it can be presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. It is also noticed that the assessment was framed ex parte by resorting to Section 144 of the Act in a proceedings initiated under s.147 of the Act. Thus, the assessee neglected the proceedings before the AO at the re-assessment stage. It is further noticed that the assessee did not care to appear before the CIT(A) either. The CIT(A) was constraint to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex parte against the assessee owing to such failure. Having committed default in appearance before the lower authorities at both stages, the assessee continued its reprehensible conduct even before the Tribunal.

Having filed the appeal before the Tribunal seeking to impugn the action of the lower authorities, the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any adjournment. The nonchalant approach of the assessee was seen with disfavor by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor (Tax Appeal No.710 of 2018 & Ors. order dated 27.06.2018). In the absence of any vigilance shown by the assessee, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the only alternative left is to dismiss both the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P)Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). & 1423/Ahd/18 [Paresh J. Parekh vs. ITO] A.YS. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 3 -

Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty, if so advised, to seek for a recall of this order.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.