THE SUB REGISTRAR,PARDI vs. THE DIT(I&CI), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1668/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 January 2019AY 2014-153 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 dismissed the appeals in limine due to the assessee's non-representation and lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. The appeals were also noted to be time-barred without any reasons provided.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the hearing of five appeals for AY 2014-15. The assessee also did not attend or respond during the penalty proceedings before the Director of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals should be dismissed for non-appearance of the assessee and lack of representation. Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271FA were validly initiated without assessee's response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271FA,Section 274

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.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD "B" BENCH

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member

ITA Nos. 1668 to 1672/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2014-15

The Sub Registrar, | The DCIT(I&CI), Pardi, | Ahmedabad At. Pardi | Vs | (Respondent) PAN: SRTSO5939D (Appellant)

Revenue by: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

Assessee by: None

Date of hearing : 30-01-2019 Date of pronouncement : 31-01-2019

आदेश/ORDER

PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

These five appeals filed by assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, arise from order of the DIT( I & CI), Ahmedabad, in proceedings under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellantassessee. Last notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 03/01/2019 fixing the date of hearing on 31/01/2019 at the address indicated in column No. 10. Despite this, the assessee remained unrepresented. It is further seen that the said notice has not come back un-served. 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 safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals 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 Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.).

- 3. The appeals of the assessee are also time barred. However, the assessee has not filed any reason for late filing of appeals. It is also noticed even before the ld. Director of Income Tax (I &CI), the assessee has neither attended nor responded or filed any submission during the course of penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271FA of the income tax. - 4. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. - 5. In the result, all the five appeals of the Assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-01-2019

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Ahmedabad : Dated 31/01/2019

आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

- 1. Assessee - 2. Revenue - 3. Concerned CIT - 4. CIT (A) - 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad - 6. Guard file.

By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 271FA

All 190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271FA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →