SRI. E. SHEIK USMAN, PRO. AASIYA TRADING CO.,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 53/COCH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 September 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 was listed for hearing. The assessee was neither present nor had filed an adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the 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(2)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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 18.09.2018Pronounced: 18.09.2018

Per George George K., JM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order u/s 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, dated 29th December, 2017.

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing today, none was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. The notice of hearing has been issued to the assessee at the given address. It is, therefore, presumed that that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in

ITA No.53/Coch/2018. 2 Sri. E.Sheik Usman. CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. However, if the assessee so desires, shall be free to move an application to this Tribunal praying for recalling this order, explaining reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of September, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (George George K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cochin ; Dated : 18th September, 2018. Devdas*

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT Thiruvananthapuram 4. The CIT, Range-1,Thiruvananthapuram. 5. DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard file. BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Cochin

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →