M/S. P.M. ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1526/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 March 2019AY 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 observed that the assessee was not present and had not taken steps to prosecute the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order of the CIT(A). The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, and the assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal or file an application for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and file necessary applications.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAB(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

Hearing: 07/03/2019

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 18.11.2016 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14.

2.

Grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.8,20.380/- which was imposed by the AO under section 271AAB(1) of the Income Tax Act.

3.

In response to the notice of hearing none has come present. The appeal was presented before the Tribunal by the assessee through authorized person. An acknowledgement-cum-notice was issued at the time of receipt of appeal. It was brought to the notice of the assessee that appeal was time barred by 143 days. The assessee was required to file an application for condonation of delay, but almost more than one- and-half years has expired and appeal is on board since 16.11.2018. Neither assessee appeared nor any application for condonation of delay

ITA No.1526 /Ahd/2017 - 2 -

was filed. No adjournment application was received by the Registry. It is also noticed that none has appeared before the ld.CIT(A) also, and therefore, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty in an exparte order. Keeping in view all these facts, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interest in prosecuting its appeal, hence, it is dismissed for the want of prosecution.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 11th March, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →