PARSOTTAM NARAN PATEL,SURAT vs. THE JCIT, RANGE - 6, SURAT
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 held that the assessee failed to effectively pursue the appeal. Based on judicial pronouncements, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. The appeal was fixed for hearing, but no one appeared for the assessee, nor was an adjournment application filed.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No 972/4hd/20 6/Parsottam Naran PateVAY2008-02 37a 34ldly 3fuaur, at zrrroa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT s HVAf,7f4r 4cF4 74r # 3t.4t.far, du1 4ar4 & Fr8T BEFORE SHRI CMGARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3T.
H.I.T.A No.972/Ahd/2016 faefroradf/Assessment Year 2008-09 Parsottam Naran Patel, Vs. JCIT Range-6, Surat) Kadodara Char Rasta, Palsana, Surat-394327 PAN-ABGPPSZO9C 3diareffAppellant 9cyeff/Respondent feRat & 3k H /Assessee by TTJTa & 3k [Revenue by None Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr: DR 09.01.2018 Tar-Aarul Date of hearing: 3quileuir-Rlarf /Pronouncement on h.01.2018 HY8 [Q RDER PER CMGARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1 , Surat, dtd: 24.02.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. During hearing of this appeal, nobody is present for the assessee whereas the Ld: D.R: is present for the Revenue: 3 The hearing of appeal was fixed on 09.01.2018 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment received from the ^ 1 assessee at the time of the hearing: It seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal, therefore, it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. It was the duty of the assessee to make necessary arrangements for effective ITA No 972/Ahd/2016 Parsottam Narau PateVA.Y.2008-02 representation on the appointed date: Mere filing of appeal is not enough rather it requires effective persuasion also. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the appeals of the assessee are liable for dismissal in the light of judicial pronouncements by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B. N. Bhattachariee & Others 118 ITR 461(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it "Further, the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP ) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default their lordship observe as that "If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. Further , in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd,, 38 ITD 320 (Del), there was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date, hence, on the basis of inherent powers, the Tribunal treated the appeal; filed by the revenue; as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 4 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution: 5. The order pronounced in Ihe open Court on | ) 01.2018. 57 S (O.P.MEENA) (CM: GARG) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 3al Surat: faeh IDated :) ).01.2018. Copy sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT / CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT: By order %alhs Assistant Registrar, Surat dereas tr @rr7-thn- 2f1 {77 8 8
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026