SHRI VASUDEO KHATRI,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-SEONI, SEONI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not present for the hearing and did not seek an adjournment, they were not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was listed for hearing, but the assessee did not appear, nor did they file an adjournment application.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
- New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT351 citing296 ITR 495 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.153/JAB/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Vasudeo Khatri v. Income Tax Officer Nirmal Colony Ward, Seoni Barapathar, Seoni TAN/PAN:AHPPK7583A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date of hearing: 02 04 2019 Date of pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur, dated 24/4/2018, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was taken up for hearing on 2/4/2019, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. Since the assessee did not appear on the date fixed for hearing, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC)
ITA No.153/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2
Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution. The assessee may, however, get it revived by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/04/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- [A. D. JAIN] [T. S. KAPOOR] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
DATED:03/04/2019 JJ:0204 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026