SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA M. BHATT,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3027/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 July 2019AY 2003-042 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 was not serious about pursuing the case, citing precedents where appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, nor did they file for an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal was considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 02/07/2019Pronounced: 03/07/2019

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Baroda arising out of the order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the ITO, Ward – 5(4), Baroda under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2003-04.

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 its 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 appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →