THE HONAVAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,U.K vs. ITO-WARD-2, UDUPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1699/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 October 2017AY 2012-133 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 absence and concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Honnavar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd, appealed against the disallowance of its claim under Section 36(1)(viiia) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings despite receiving notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(viiia)

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, BENGALURU BENCH B, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI. A. K. GARODIA

For Respondent: Shri. N. Sukumar, Addl. CIT

PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

The present appeal is filed by the assessee, arising out of the order of the CIT (A), Mangaluru, dt.16.08.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13, on the ground that the lower authorities have erred in disallowing / rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s.36(1)(viiia) of the Act, amounting to Rs.7,84,266/-, which is 7½% of the total income.

ITA.1699/Bang/2016 Page - 2

2.

We find from the order sheet that the case was initially posted for hearing on 03.02.2017, on which day nobody appeared but a written submission dt.30.01.2017 was filed expressing its inability to appear before us and requesting the bench to decide the appeal on the basis of the written submissions. But one more opportunity was given to the assessee to appear for hearing on 11.09.2017. Although the notice of hearing was sent to the assesse by RPAD, the assessee has not chosen to appear on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →