SHRI BHAGWATIBEN JAYANTILAL PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1025/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 October 2018AY 2008-092 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, inferring that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. This decision was based on precedents where appeals were dismissed for lack of effective pursuit.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming reassessment and additions made by the AO. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite notice.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made. However, the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's failure to prosecute.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148

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, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 22.02.2017, passed by the learned CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, in the matter of assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year 2008-09, on the following grounds :-

“1. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in holding validity of re-opening and reassessment u/s.147, in as much as,

1.1 The notice u/s 148 dt. 27.03.2015 issued by A.O. ward-1, Mehsana was without jurisdiction since appellant was assessed by A.O. ward-1, Patan. The reassessment is bad in law and void ab initio.

1.2 Reasons recorded u/s 147 not supplied to appellant and procedure of reassessment as ruled by Hon. SC is not followed by A.O. 259 ITR 19 (SC).

2.

Learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming addition on basis of peak credit at Rs.16,43,500/- out of total addition made by A.O. at Rs.27,33,500/-.

ITA No.1025/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 2 of 2

3.

Learned CIT(A) had erred in further confirming addition of Rs.49,500/- from cash book, without giving notice of enhancement and further opportunity to the appellant.”

2.

It is noticed that when the matter came up for hearing, none appeared for and on behalf of the assessee appellant despite notice having been sent by Registered Post. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the 3. open court today on the 15th day of October, 2018.

Sd/- Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Dated: Ahmedabad, the 15th day of October, 2018.

PBN/*

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →