GULAB RAI BATRA,MUKTSAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 226/ASR/2015Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 February 2019AY 2010-113 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 interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, following established precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was listed for hearing. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment application was filed despite due notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 07.02.2019Pronounced: 07.02.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.226(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2010-11

Sh. Gulab Rai Batra, Vs. Pr. CIT, Kotkapura Road, Bathinda. Muktsar. [PAN:ABLPB 1793P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 07.02.2019 Date of pronouncement: 07.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the order dated 16/17.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Bathinda, u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’).

2.

At the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee, and neither any adjournment application was filed in this case. From the records, it is observed that the due notice for the date of hearing for today was issued which was sent through RPAD, but did not respond. From the above, it is observed that assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeal. Therefore, considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, as was considered in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd’, reported in 38 ITD 320(Del.), we treat this appeal as unadmitted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free

ITA No.226/Asr/2015 (A.Y.2010-11) 2 Sh. Gulab Rai Batra vs. Pr. CIT

to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance, etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons, etc., it can recall the above order.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 07 .02.2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07.02.2019 /PK/ Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) Sh. Gulab Rai Batra, Kotkapura Road, Muktsar (2) The Pr. CIT, Bathinda (3) The SR DR, I.T.A.T., Amritsar True copy By order

Filename: Multiplan, Gulab Rai Batra, 226-15 Directory: D:\DOCUMENT\NKC Orders 2018 Template: C:\Users\etc parmod\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Subject: Author: Rahul Prabhakar Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 2/8/2019 3:10:00 PM Change Number: 54 Last Saved On: 2/11/2019 11:02:00 AM Last Saved By: etc parmod Total Editing Time: 98 Minutes Last Printed On: 2/11/2019 11:03:00 AM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 3 (approx.) Number of Words: 466 (approx.) Number of Characters: 2,659 (approx.)

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →