PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1356/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2017AY 2011-123 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 appeal for AY 2011-12 was listed for hearing multiple times. Despite receiving proper notice, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared for the hearing.

What were the issues?

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

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 “H” MUMBAI

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

For Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Hearing: 17/10/2017Pronounced: 24/11/2017

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

We find that the case was fixed for hearing on 22.08.2017. The assessee made a request by filing an application for an adjournment. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 17.10.2017. The assessee was also informed about the date of hearing on 17.10.2017 as is evident from the signature of its authorized representative on the body of the Pragatee Enterprises above application. In spite of that, neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on 17.10.2017.

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. It is found that neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). 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).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →