SHRI RAJENDRA JIBHAI BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-13(3)., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1160/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 November 2019AY 2010-112 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 observed that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not file any adjournment application. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2010-11. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH&

For Respondent: Shri Laxman Singh Gurjar
Hearing: 18/11/2019Pronounced: 27/11/2019

The instant appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders dated 01.02.2016 and 19.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the ITO, Ward – 13(3), Ahmedabad under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post as per the address given in Column No.10 of Form No. 36. However, at the time of hearing neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue his - 2 - Shri Rajendra Jibhai Barot vs ITO A.Y. 2010-11 case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-vs-B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar-vs-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However the assessee is at liberty to apply for the recall of the order within the prescribed time after furnishing the suitable reasons for non- appearance. Hence the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →