Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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.
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.
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).