AMMAN APOLLO INDIA PVT. LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS APOLLO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA
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, in the absence of any representation from the assessee and no request for adjournment, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was listed for hearing. Despite a notice being sent to the assessee's registered address, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed in limine due to the non-appearance of the assessee's representative.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh
आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order of the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad dated 16-09-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant- assessee. Last notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 27/04/2018 fixing the date of hearing on 04/06/2018 at the address indicated in column No. 10. Despite this, the assessee remained unrepresented. It is further seen that the
I.T.A No. 3339/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Amman Apollo India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
said notice has not come back un-served. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee or petition seeking time, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.).
Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06-06-2018
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 06/06/2018 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026