SUNLIGHT EXTRUSION PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2059/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 April 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the consistent absence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite prior notices. The assessee had also not appeared on an earlier occasion without intimation.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee and their lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 30.03.2016 arising in the penalty order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under S. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant- assessee. Case file reveals that the Registry has already sent an RPAD notice dated 11.03.2019 to assessee. None appeared for assessee on

ITA No.2059/Ahd/16 [Sunlight Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - earlier occasion also without any intimation. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 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 appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal 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.).

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.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/04/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 30/04/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →