MR.ANUJ MADHUKAR KUMAR, BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 523/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 February 2019AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to their consistent absence. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but the assessee or their representative did not appear on any occasion. Despite repeated notices sent by registered post, no response or request for adjournment was received from the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute their appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 13.02.2019Pronounced: 15.02.2019

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-12, Bangalore dated 19.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2014-15.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. “The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, dated 19-12-2017 is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to law and facts of the case. The learned officer has failed to understand that the controversy in the cases referred to by the learned officer relates to adoption of cost of construction-whether it is the actual cost of construction or the estimated cost of construction whereas the controversy in the case covered under relied upon by the appellant relates squarely to the adoption of deemed consideration-whether guidance value of the land ceded to the builders or the cost of construction of the built-up area. The learned officer has failed to note that the the ITAT has categorically stated in the case relied upon by the appellant as referred to above that the capital gains should be appropriate to the FMV of the land ceded and not to the cost of construction. The learned officer has failed to note that the Apex court has held in Page 2 of 3 the case of CIT v Vegetables Products Ltd (88 ITR 192) that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provisions are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. The appellant therefore requests that in view of what is stated herein as also of what may be urged at the time of hearing, the order passed by the learned officer, impugned herein, may be quashed and set aside. The appellant craves leave to add to, delete, modify or amend any of thegrounds herein mentioned at the time of hearing”

2.

This appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on 11.06.2018 and notice of hearing was sent to assessee by RPAD which has not come back unserved and hence, service of notice is presumed. On this date, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there was no request for adjournment also but still the hearing was adjourned to 14.08.2018 and notice of hearing was again sent to assessee by RPAD at the address provided by the assessee in Col. 10 of Form No. 36 filed by the assessee. On this date, the bench did not function and hence, the hearing was adjourned to 06.11.2018 and notice of hearing was again sent to assessee at the same address. On this date also, the bench did not function and hearing was adjourned to 13.02.2019 and notice of hearing was again sent to assessee by RPAD on the same address. On 13.02.2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment and hence, we infer that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), we dismiss this appeal of the assessee as unadmitted.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →