MAHEK K. DASWANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT-III, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2730/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 November 2016AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the repeated non-compliance by the assessee in responding to notices and appearing for hearings. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's ground was that the CIT erred in setting aside the assessment order without proper justification. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated non-compliance and absence from 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(3)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, MUMBAI BENCHES “B” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Mr. N.P.Singh-DR
Hearing: 07/11/2016Pronounced: 07/11/2016

Assessee by None Department by Mr. N.P.Singh-DR Date of Hearing: 07/11/2016 Date of pronouncement: 07/11/2016 ORDER PER N.K.PRADHAN, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. It is directed against the order dated 09/11/2012 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the Commissioner of Income Tax -III, Thane.

2.

The only ground by the assessee in this appeal is that ‘the ld. CIT erred in law and as well as on facts while setting aside the assessment order passed by the AO on the ground that the AO had not conducted proper enquiries with reference to cash deposited by the assessee in her account and investment made by her, in spite of the fact that the AO had examined these issues during assessment proceedings.’

3.

We find that there is repeated non-compliance by the assessee to be notices issued by the Registry fixing the case of hearing. The case was fixed for hearing on 15/1/2015;13/7/2015;25/5/2016 and 7/11/2016 by sending the notices through RPAD. The assessee did not appear for hearing on the above dates.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:

"if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference." 4.1 Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT(2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

4.2 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another(118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) has held that the appeal does not mean mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

5.

Respectfully following the above decisions, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution .

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →