Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
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’).
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.
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. 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).