RAVINDRA SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GHAZIABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the consistent non-prosecution by the assessee and the thorough examination of issues by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authority's order.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, claiming it was sent to a non-existent address. The CIT(A) upheld the notice's validity. The assessee consistently failed to appear before the ITAT for hearings.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether it was served on the last known address. The secondary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
This appeal by assessee preferred against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida, (hereinafter referred to as [“Ld. CIT(A)”]), dated 20.12.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10, on the following grounds of appeal:
Page 1 of 5 ITA No.- 1528/Del/2018 Ravindra Singh “1. Because, leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which admittedly issued on a non-existing address never belonged to assessee by wrongly holding that notice is issued on last known address, which is contrary to decisions of DR. AJAY PRAKASH (ALL), Atlanta Capital (P) LTD.(DEL) etc.
2. Because, leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the fact that during assessment proceedings neither objections raised before Ld. AO on the above issue had disposed off properly nor any evidence regarding the issuance/service of notice at the address on the record is given.”
When the appeal was called for hearing on 22.05.2024, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and no any adjournment was sought. From the bare perusal of record, it reveals that prior to dated 22.05.2024 since long period nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee on listed dates for hearing.
We have heard the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“ld. SR. DR”) and perused the material available on record. Due to consistent non-prosecution from the assessee’s side, we have no option except to dispose off the appeal.
The Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders passed by both the lower authorities.
In the present appeal the assessee / appellant challenged the upholding the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Page 2 of 5
ITA No.- 1528/Del/2018 Ravindra Singh Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which admittedly issued on a non-existing address never belongs to him by wrongly that notice is issued on last known address. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has gone into the submission made by the assessee, material available on record and judicial precedence on the issue and dismissed the appeal of assessee.
From the bare perusal of records before us, after filing the present appeal, there is no any representation from the assessee’s side, for quite long time i.e. right from 29.03.2023 to 22.05.2024, total non-appearance of assessee shown as per record and in this period, no any adjournment sought by or on behalf of assessee.
During above period several notices have been sent to assessee through the registry. Considering above facts, and circumstances, there is no other option except to dispose off the present appeal after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR. So, we have heard the Ld. DR and carefully perused the material available on record.
As we mentioned earlier, right from filing this appeal, assessee himself or on behalf of assessee never appeared in proceedings.
The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issues has gone into submissions
ITA No.- 1528/Del/2018 Ravindra Singh made by the assessee, and material available on record, and dismissed the appeal. In the present appeal neither assessee nor his representative appeared to produced any material to contradict the finding of lower authorities and we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has thoroughly examined and scanned all the issues and exhaustive, detailed and well reasoned order passed, so there is no any ground exist for interference and impugned order deserves to be confirmed.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.08.2024
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
