IMC OF ITI,KASGANJ vs. ITO EXEP., GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 340/AGR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 March 2018AY 2013-142 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 appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal further. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing before the ITAT Agra Bench. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment application was filed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution.

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, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN

For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Hearing: 22.03.2018Pronounced: 22.03.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA

BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No. 340/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14)

M/s IMC of ITI, Kasganj, Vs..ITO-(Exemption), Kashiramnagar, Kisroli, Kasganj. Ward, Ghaziabad. PAN No.AAATI8168D (Assessee) (Revenue)

Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR.

Date of Hearing 22.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 22.03.2018

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

CIT(A) dated 09.09.2016, in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

When the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the

assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. I find that the date of

hearing has been noted by the Counsel of the assessee. Under these circumstances,

it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further.

As such, I hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this

regard I place reliance upon the following case laws:

1.

CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.)

I.T.A No. 340/Agra/2016 2

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), I 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, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/03/2018.

Sd/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 22/03/2018 *AKV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →