SHRI HITESH CHANDRAKANT SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)2, VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2081/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 March 2019AY 2009-101 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 presumed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT against orders of the CIT(A). Despite proper service of notice, the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Hearing: 04/03/2019Pronounced: 04/03/2019

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2081 and 2082/Ahd/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Hitesh Chandrakant Shah Vs. DCIT, Cir.2(1)(2) Prakash Chemicals Agencies Baroda. Mahajan Lane Raopura, Vadodara.

अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �त् यथ�/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Virendra Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 04/03/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 04/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R These are two appeals by the assessee against separate orders of ld.CIT(A), Baroda dated 7.2.2013 and 28.6.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2009-10.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through RPAD post, which was duly served by the postal authority, as the RPAD acknowledgement slip was received back and placed on record. Assessee has not filed any adjournment application nor intimated about its non- appearance on the date of hearing. In view of this, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals before the Tribunal, therefore, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Order pronounced in the Court on 4th March, 2019. Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 04/03/2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →