BHOJ RAJ MAKHIJA,KOTA vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 November 2017AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Since the assessee did not appear for the hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals without admission.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) confirming penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the assessee should be admitted and heard on merits when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAA

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. 347 & 348/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. 347 & 348/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Bhoj Raj Makhija, A.C.I.T., Vs. Prop.- M/s Rajesh Kumar & Circle-3, Company, Old Dhan Mandi, Kota. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABGPM 1361 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.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: KUL BHARAT, J.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. 2011-12 and 2012-13. In ITA No. 347/JP/2016, the assessee has taken sole ground of appeal, which is against confirming the penalty of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and in ITA NO. 348/JP/2016 the assessee has also taken sole ground which is against confirming the penalty of Rs. 28,16,930/- made U/s 271AAA of the Act.

ITA 347 & 348/JP/2016_ 2 Bhoj Raj 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/- ¼Hkkxpan½ ¼ dqy Hkkjr ½ (BHAGCHAND) (Kul Bharat) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial 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 Bhoj Raj 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. 347 & 348/JP/2016) 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 →