Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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)-I, Baroda dated 25-09-2014, 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 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.).
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