Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite notice. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271E, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee did not file any written submissions or arguments against the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the lack of any response to the CIT(A)'s order. Following precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal can be dismissed in limine due to the non-appearance of the assessee and lack of arguments against the lower authorities' order.
Sections Cited
271E
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. 589/JP/2024
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 589/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma The ITO Vs. Shri Bajrang College Ward-1 Bhuda Gate, Deeg, Bharatpur-321 203 Bharatpur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AZVPS 2914 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 26/06/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10 /07/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 21-02-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14 raising the grounds of appeal as mentioned at Form No. 36.
2 SHRI MAHESH CHAND SHARMA VS ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR 2.2 During the course of hearing, it was noticed that 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. In this case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the penalty u/s 271E has been rightly imposed by the AO. The Bench in this case noticed that the assessee has not filed written submissions / arguments controverting the order the order of the ld. CIT(A). . 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.