KALPESH K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3960/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2017AY 1995-963 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-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were directed against penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The case was listed for multiple hearings, but the assessee failed to appear on any of the scheduled dates.

What were the issues?

Whether an 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 271(1)(c)

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 MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh KumarYadav, DR
Hearing: 09/11/2017Pronounced: 24/11/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai and arise out of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar, 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 01.09.2015, 11.02.2016, 12.07.2017 and 09.11.2017. It is found that neither the Kalpesh K. Shah 2 & 3961/Mum/2013 assessee nor his 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. 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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →