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

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.

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत