PRASANTA KUMAR DASH,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 274/CTK/2015Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 December 2017AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT under section 263. The case was adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee's representative. On the final hearing date, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Hearing: 12/12Pronounced: 12/12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 274/CTK/2015 Assessment Year : 2011- 2012

Prasanta Kumar Dash, Flat Vs. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. No.205, N.A. Majestic Apartment, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AENPD 6409 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 12/12/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 12/12/ 2017

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar dated 30.3.2015 u/s.263

of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

This case was fixed for hearing on 2.8.2017 and the hearing was

adjourned at the request of ld A.R. of the assessee to 3.10.2017. On

3.10.2017, no one was present on behalf of the assessee and, therefore,

the case was again adjourned to 12.12.2017. Notice of hearing dated

6.10.2017 was sent to the assessee by Speed Post. However, on

12.12.2017, when the case was called for hearing, no one was present on

behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed.

From the above conduct of the assessee, we infer that the assessee is not

interested in pursuing his appeal before the Tribunal. While taking this

view, we derive support from the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case

of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt Ltd.m 38 ITD 320 (Del). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 12 /12/2017. Sd/- sd/- (N.S Saini) (Pavan Kumar Gadale) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 12 /12/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Prasanta Kumar Dash, Flat No.205, N.A. Majestic Apartment, Jharpada, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →