What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the consistent non-appearance of the assessee. Citing precedents, the Tribunal decided not to admit the appeal.

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. Despite adjournments and notices, the assessee or their representative failed to appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

Shri Govind Chitlangia, Kishangarh vs ITO | ITAT Jaipur 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 768/JP/2017

Hearing: 22/01/2018Pronounced: 22/01/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 768/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Govind Chitlangiya, The ITO, Vs. S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Thitlangiya, Ward 2, 1523/15, Dayanand Colony, Kishangarh. Kotada Road, Ram Nagar, Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADWPC0522C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/01/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 22/01/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.08.2017 of ld. CIT(A), Kishangarhh for the Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It is noted that none has appeared even on the last date of hearing on 20.12.2017 though an application for

ITA No. 768/JP/2017 Shri Govind Chitlangia Vs. ITO

adjournment was filed on behalf of the assessee. According, the hearing

of the appeal was adjourned to 22.01.2018 with the direction to issue a

notice through RPAD. Despite the adjournment taken by the assessee

on the last date of hearing and a notice sent through RPAD nobody has

appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case when none has appeared on behalf of the

assessee nor any request of adjournment has been filed then it is

apparent that the assessee is not interested in perusing and prosecution

of the present appeal.

So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of

ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320

and also on the judgment of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of

Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the

appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine for

non prosecution as pronounced in the open Court on 22.01.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22.01.2018. *Santosh. 2

ITA No. 768/JP/2017 Shri Govind Chitlangia Vs. ITO आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Govind Chitlangiya, Ajmer. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO Ward 2, Kishangarh. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 768/JP/2017} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

SHRI GOVIND CHITLANGIA,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments