VIJAY MAKHIJA,KOTA vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 343/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 November 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case. Following precedent, the appeals were not admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) confirming additions made to undisclosed investment in a house and mines for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be admitted when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

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, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 343 & 344/JP/2016

Hearing: 29/11/2017Pronounced: 29/11/2017

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 343 & 344/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 cuke Vijay Makhija, A.C.I.T., Vs. C/o- M/s Bharat Traders, Old Circle-3, Dhan Mandi, Kota-324001 Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFTPM 8706 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29/11/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. Both these appeal filed by the same assessee emanates from the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 21/01/2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2011-12. In both these appeals, the assessee has taken common ground of appeal, which is against confirming the addition of Rs. 12,25,000/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs. 20,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 as undisclosed investment in the house and in the mines.

ITA 343 & 344/JP/2016_ 2 Vijay Makhija Vs ACIT 2. At the time of hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the

assessee. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to

pursue his 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 appeals

of the assessee are not admitted and are dismissed as limine as

pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2017.

3.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼dqy Hkkjr½ ¼Hkkxpan½ (Kul Bharat) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29th November, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Vijay Makhija, Kota. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Jaipur. 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. 343 & 344/JP/2016) 6.

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →