M/S BAL KISHAN NYATI HUF,BUNDI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-SAWAI MADHOPUR, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 748/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 December 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and inferred a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Following precedent, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing despite the date being noted.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and presumed lack of interest in pursuing the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2017

Hearing: 14/12/2017Pronounced: 14/12/2017

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Bal Kishan Nyati HUF, A.C.I.T., Vs. Prop.- Shri Balaji Industries, Circle- Sawai Madhopur, Chittor Road, Bundi. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAHN 5696 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None (Date was noted) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 14/12/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 14/12/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 28/07/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09, wherein the assessee has raised only one ground of appeal, which is reproduced as under: 1. Because the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,10,016/- U/s 271(1)(c) made by the ld Assessing Officer without considering all the facts and evidence available before him.”

ITA 748/JP/2017_ 2 Bal Kishan Nyati HUF Vs ACIT 2. At the time of hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the

assessee after being date was noted. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue its case. So in the circumstances,

following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., and also Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT,

223 ITR 480 (MP), the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed as limine as pronounced in the open court on 14/12/2017.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/12/2017. Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@ ys[kk lnL;@ ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member ys[kk lnL;@ Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 14th December, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Bal Kishan Nyati HUF, Bundi. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-Sawai Madhopur, Kota. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 748/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →