ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (OSD) CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4059/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 November 2017AY 2004-053 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to their consistent non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, and despite receiving proper notice, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The assessee had previously requested an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Hearing: 03/10/2017Pronounced: 29/11/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2004-05. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

We find that the case was fixed for hearing on 30.05.2017. The assessee requested on the above date for an adjournment. Accordingly, Asian Electronics Ltd. 03.10.2017. In spite of that, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on 03.10.2017.

3.

At the threshold, it is relevant to mention that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for. We find that proper notice of hearing has already been given to the assessee. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such we hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws:

1. 1. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A), having gone through the relevant record has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →