SEETARAMAIAH SETTY CHIGARAMBATLA,RAICHUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1688/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 November 2016AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not present despite proper notice of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09. The appeal was called for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, SMC, BENGALURU BENCH C, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri. Seetaramaiah Setty Chigarambatla, Prop : C. Seetaramaiah & Co., Patel Road, 11-11-60, Bresthawarpet, Raichur 584 101 .. Appellant PAN : ADLPC9091R v. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 1, Raichur .. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. S. Praveena, Addl. CIT Heard on : 30.11.2016 Pronounced on : 30.11.2016 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by assessee against an order dt 15.07.2016, passed by the CIT (A), Gulbarga (Kalaburagi), for the A. Y. 2008-09.

2.

When the appeal was called up for hearing, nobody appeared for assessee. It is seen from records that in spite of the date of hearing being ITA.1688/Bang/2016 Page - 2 mentioned in the notice of hearing, which has been issued and served on the assessee, nobody was present on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non- prosecution.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →