M/S RACHNA ENTERPRISES,NARSINGHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 219/JAB/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 April 2019AY 2013-142 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 held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing and no adjournment was sought, it indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A) order was listed for hearing. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment application was filed. The notice of hearing was duly served.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughale, D.R

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.219/JAB/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s Rachna Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer Kandeli Narsinghpur Narsinghpur TAN/PAN:AAFFR2406J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri P. D. Choughale, D.R. Date of hearing: 03 04 2019 Date of pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur, dated 28/8/2018, for assessment year 2013-14. 2. This appeal was taken up for hearing on 3/4/2019, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. On perusal of record, it is noticed that the notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee, as it was issued through RPAD. 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)

ITA No.219/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2

4.

CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC)

3.

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/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:03/04/2019 JJ:0304 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →