SMT. VIMLA MEHTA,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 955/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 January 2018AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and considered it as a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following established precedents, the appeal was not admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be admitted when the assessee fails to appear for hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A

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, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 955/JP/2017

Hearing: 10/01/2018Pronounced: 10/01/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 955/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Vimla Mehta, Income Tax Officer, Vs. W/o- Narendra Kumar Mehta, Ward 2(1), 11, Kanchipuram, Bhilwara. Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGLPM 4431 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 10/01/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/01/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M.

This is the appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of

the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 11/09/2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14, wherein the

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. has erred in and ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 25,000/- U/s 271A and the penalty being unlawful, against the spirit of law and natural justice and the same is required to be deleted.” 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and or withdraw any of or all the above grounds of appeal with the prior permission of the chair.

ITA 955/JP/2017_ 2 Vimla Mehta Vs ITO 2. At the time of hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the

assessee. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to

pursue her case. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi

Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., and also Estate

of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), the appeal of the

assessee is not admitted and is dismissed as limine.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/01/2018.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@ ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member ys[kk lnL;@ ys[kk lnL;@ Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10th January, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Vimla Mehta, Bhilwara. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 955/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →