SHRI BHARAT RAMCHAND SHYAMDASANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3438/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 November 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. 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 order of the CIT(A). Despite a notice of hearing being sent, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was an adjournment requested.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can 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 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, “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 29/11/2017

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)-XVI, Ahmedabad, dated 03/11/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

2.

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. 3438/Ahd/2014 Bharat Ramchand Shyamdasani 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.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/11/2017

Sd/- Sd/- ¼izeksn dqekj izeksn dqekj izeksn dqekj½ izeksn dqekj ¼egkohj izlkn½ ¼egkohj izlkn½ 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; (PRAMOD KUMAR) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/11/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS

ITA No. 3438/Ahd/2014 Bharat Ramchand Shyamdasani 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)-XVI, 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 True Copy 1. Date of dictation 29/11/2017 (covered case) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …29/11/2017 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →