BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 322/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 March 2017AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, following established High Court judgments. The assessee's failure to appear indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments and ultimately did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-prosecution. The grounds also raised issues regarding the addition of undisclosed income, interest income, and procedural validity of assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2)

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, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 322/JP/2016

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-I

Jaipur, dated 27.01.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised

followings grounds of appeal:

1.

“Addition of undisclosed income of Rs. 1,24,72,985/- as unexplained cash deposit is bad in law & facts.

2.

Addition of interest income of Rs. 45,000/- is bad in law & facts.

3.

Making of addition by aggregate of cash deposit into bank instead of addition as per theory of peak credit balance is bad in law & facts.

4.

Instead of making addition of income earned out of said unaccountant transition, the addition of whole cash deposit into bank of the assessee is bad in law & facts.

2 ITA No. 322/JP/2016 Shri Bhagwan Singh Poswal.

5.

Assessing u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without serving notice u/s 143(2) of Income Ta Act, 1961 with in the stipulated time is bad in law & acts and the order u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be cancelled.”

No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is transpired from the record

that the assessee has been seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other on

10/8/2016, 19/9/2016, 21/10/2016, 29/11/2016 and on last date of hearing i.e. on

06.02.2017, the assessee was given last opportunity by fixing the hearing on

07.03.2017. But today, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any

application for adjournment. Under these facts, it is presumed that the assessee is

not interested to prosecute the appeal. Respectfully following the judgments of

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320

(Del.) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao

Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want

of prosecution.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 09 .03.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 09 /03/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- Shri Bhagwan Singh Poswal, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-1, Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A).

3 ITA No. 322/JP/2016 Shri Bhagwan Singh Poswal.

4.

The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 322/JP/2016) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →