SHRI GAUTAM ATMARAM PARMAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, NOW ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 409/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 November 2017AY 1992-933 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, in the absence of the assessee's representation and without a petition for adjournment, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 1991-92 to 1993-94 were listed for hearing. Despite a notice being sent, the assessee remained unrepresented.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the assessee's appeals due to non-representation at the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

These three appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 1991-92 to 1993- 94 , arise from order of the CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad dated 09-12-2014, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Last notice of hearing was sent to the assessee

I.T.A Nos. 408 to 410/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 1991-12 to 1993-94 Page No 2 on 12/10/2017 fixing the date of hearing on 22/11/2017 at the address indicated in column No.

10.

Despite this, the assessee remained unrepresented. It is further seen that the said notice has not come back un-served. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee or petition seeking time, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.).

3.

Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non- representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order.

4.

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-11-2017 (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 23/11/2017

I.T.A Nos. 408 to 410/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 1991-12 to 1993-94 Page No 3 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1.

Assessee

2.

Revenue

3.

Concerned CIT

4.

CIT (A)

5.

DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6.

Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →