NAVNEET SARAF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 530/JPR/2015Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 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 noted the assessee's consistent failure to prosecute the appeal despite multiple adjournments. Following precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of a claim under Section 54F. The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments and ultimately did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance and requests for adjournment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54F

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 KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 530/JP/2015

PER SHRI KUL BHART, JM.

The appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-

2, Jaipur dated 27.03.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. The assessee

has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1.

“The CIT(A) II has grossly erred in facts as well as in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 15100926.00 claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. 2. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) II is bad in law, contrary to facts and arbitrary. 3. The assessee prays leave to add, amend or alter grounds of the appeal at or before the time of appeal.”

At the time of hearing no-one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is

transpired from the record that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 28/3/2016 the

adjournment was sought on behalf of the assessee vide application dated

2 ITA No.530/JP/2015 Shri Navneet Saraf.

15/3/2016. The request of the assessee was accepted and the hearing was adjourned to 23rd May, 2016 on this date also the application for seeking

adjournment was filed dated 16/5/2016. The request of the assessee was accepted

and appeal was adjourned to 21/7/2016. Yet, again an application seeking

adjournment was filed dated 20/7/2016. The appeal was adjourned to 26/9/2016

once again the assessee filed an application seeking adjournment the request was

accepted and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 22/11/2016 on this state also

adjournment application was filed on behalf of the assessee. Today, neither any

application is filed nor anybody appear on behalf of the assessee. In view, of the

facts narrated herein above it appeared that the assessee is not interested in

prosecuting the appeals. 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

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( dqy Hkkjr) ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 08/03/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Navneet Saraf, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur. 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 530/JP/2015)

3 ITA No.530/JP/2015 Shri Navneet Saraf.

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →