U.P. ARTHROPLASTY SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 261/LKW/2018Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 February 2019AY 2018-192 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to their non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2018-19 was listed for hearing. Despite proper notice being served, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

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, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI. A. D. JAIN & SHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.261/LKW/2018 Assessment Year: 2018-19 U.P. Arthroplasty Society v. CIT (Exemption) 59/60, 1st Floor, Birhana Road Lucknow Kanpur TAN/PAN:AAAAU3390A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 12 02 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19 against the order of the ld. CIT (Exemption), Lucknow dated 8/2/2018 passed under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. 2. This appeal was taken up for hearing on 12.2.2019, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. We find that the notice of hearing had been sent through RPAD to the assessee, the acknowledgement of which has been received back showing receipt of notice by the assessee on 10/1/2019. Since the assessee did not appear despite having knowledge of the date of hearing, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:-

ITA No.261/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 2

1.

CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC)

3.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, get it revived by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/02/2019.

Sd/- Sd/- [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

DATED:22nd February, 2019 JJ:1202 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order

Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii)

All 94 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →