M.S SHAH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7172/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2017AY 2009-103 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 repeated non-appearances. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee and the Revenue filed cross-appeals against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments and ultimately failed to appear for the hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to repeated non-appearances before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 “B” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. Suman Kumar, DR
Hearing: 21/09/2017Pronounced: 24/11/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The cross appeals-one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue- are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai and arise out of the assessment M/s M.S. Shah Developers 2 & 7131/Mum/2012 completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). Since common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

We find that the case was fixed for hearing on 06.01.2016. The assessee requested for an adjournment. On the request of the assessee the case was adjourned to 26.07.2016. Again on 26.07.2016, the assessee requested for an adjournment. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 10.11.2016. Neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on 10.11.2016. The case was again fixed for hearing on 16.01.2017, 29.05.2017 and 21.09.2017. It is found that neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on the above dates.

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. 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 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →