Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12. During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and it was noted that the assessee was also ex-parte before the CIT(A). The assessee had been given multiple opportunities previously.
Held
The Tribunal observed that despite notices, the assessee was not represented and appeared to be uninterested in pursuing the case. The assessee also failed to provide any written submissions or arguments. Therefore, following precedents, the appeal was not admitted and was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be admitted and heard on merits when the assessee fails to appear and pursue the case?
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 481/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 23-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising the grounds of appeal
as mentioned at Form No. 36. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noticed that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was call out for hearing. From the records, it
2. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SAINI VS ITO, WARD BEHROR is also noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the AO in spite of providing five times opportunities to the assessee on various dates like 01-02-2021, 03-03-2022, 03-11-2022, 14-06-2023 and 11-03-2024. 2.2 In spite of the notice sent by the Tribunal, the case was not represented on behalf of the assessee when it was called for hearing. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue his cases. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991]
38. ITD 320 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine. 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.5 The Bench further on merit heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noticed that the assessee has filed paper book containing pages 1 to 63 but no written submissions / arguments concerning the above mentioned appeal had been advanced by the assessee. Hence, in such a situation, the Bench has no other alternative except to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the above mentioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed.