MONIKA,SUNDERGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/CTK/2016Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 August 20172 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 presumed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to the unserved notice. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT Delhi Bench decision for this presumption.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT (Exemptions). A notice for the hearing was sent to the assessee's address on record, but it was returned unserved with remarks of insufficient name and address.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal can be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear after the notice was returned unserved.

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 Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 10/08Pronounced: 10/08

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.58/CTK/2016

CIT (Exemptions), 5th floor, Monika, At: Jalda, ‘A’ Block, Vs. PO; Jalda C. Rourkela. Posnett Bhawan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. PAN/GIR No.AADAM 8112 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 10/08/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10/08/ 2017

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT

(Exemptions), Hyderabad, dated 30.11.2015.

2 The notice dated 19.7.2017 fixing the hearing on 10.8.2017 sent by Speed Post has been returned back unserved with the postal remarks “Insufficient name and address”. The notice was sent at the address given in Form No.36 by the assessee filed before the Tribunal. No other address is placed on record by the assessee. Under the above circumstances, we presume that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. While taking this view, we derive the support from the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320.

2 ITA No.58/CTK/2016 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /08/2017.

(Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated /08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Monika, At: Jalda, ‘A’ Block, PO; Jalda C. Rourkela 2. The Respondent. CIT (Exemptions), 5th floor, Posnett Bhawan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad 3. The CIT(A)- 4. Pr.CIT- 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack BY ORDER, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →