SHRI ANIRUDDHSINH VALKUBHA KATHI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Citing various High Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee, but no one appeared on their behalf, nor was an adjournment requested.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad, dated 01/10/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.
The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post as per the address given in Column No.10 of Form No. 36. However, at
ITA No. 35/Ahd/2015 Shri Aniruddhsinh Valkubha Kathi vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2010-11 - 2 - the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been filed. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/12/2017
Sd/- Sd/- एन.के. �ब�लैया महावीर �साद (लेखा सद�य) (�या�यक सद�य) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/12/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
ITA No. 35/Ahd/2015 Shri Aniruddhsinh Valkubha Kathi vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2010-11 - 3 - आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-xx, Ahmedabad �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026