ADMARK POLYCOATS PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3395/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 June 2018AY 2011-122 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 noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any request for adjournment. It was presumed that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal.

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 address, no representative appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-representation of the assessee during the hearing of their appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order of the CIT(A)-I, Baroda dated 25-09-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

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 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

I.T.A No. 3395/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 Admark Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

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.).

3.

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.

4.

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 →