AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,COM.CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 1982-83. Despite notice, the assessee neither appeared nor filed an adjournment application.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear or pursue the case.
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, “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & 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)-I, Baroda, dated 22/09/2011 for the Assessment Year (AY) 1982-83.
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 the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any
ITA No. 3137/Ahd/2011 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 1982-83 - 2 - 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 29/11/2017
Sd/- Sd/- ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼iznhi dqekj dsfM;k½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ Yks[kk ln Yks[kk ln Yks[kk lnL; Yks[kk ln L; L; L; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/11/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
ITA No. 3137/Ahd/2011 Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 1982-83 - 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)-I, Baroda �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 True Copy
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026