SUREKHA B. THAKUR,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(4), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4251/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 September 2016AY 2004-055 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 proceeded ex-parte due to the assessees' non-appearance and failure to prosecute their appeals. The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessees challenged reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and subsequent additions. Notices sent to the assessees' provided addresses were returned unserved, and they did not appear for hearings or provide new addresses.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reopening under Section 147/148 and the subsequent additions. The immediate reason for dismissal was the non-prosecution of the appeals by the assessees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 55(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar-DR
Hearing: 06/09/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This bunch of five appeals is by the different assessee against the impugned orders all dated 24/04/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, challenging the reopening u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), on the plea that no valid notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued within time limit provided u/s 149 of the Act. The assessee has also challenged confirmation of the addition mentioned in the respective appeals and directing the Assessing Officer to determined the long term capital gain on the sale of land at village Gandhare, Kalyan by considering the fair market value of land as per section 55(2)(b) as on 01/04/1981.

2.

During hearing, none was present for the assessees in spite of issuance of registered AD notices issued to the respective assessee. The registered AD notice sent to the assessee at the addresses, provided by assessee themselves, were returned back by the postal authorities unserved. These assessees did not provide any new address. However, the assessees neither presented themselves nor moved adjournment petition. It seems that the assessees are not interested to pursue their appeal filed by the them, therefore, I have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee, and tend to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR, Shri Sumit Kumar, defended the addition made in the respective appeal.

2.1. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. I find that these appeals were filed by the respective assessee on 09/07/2015. The registered AD notices were sent by the registry of the Tribunal to the respective assessee at the addresses provided by them in Form No.36. These notices were returned by the postal authorities. Neither new addresses were provided by the assessee nor moved any adjournment petition. In such a situation, these appeals cannot be kept pending for indefinite period, therefore, I have no option but to dismiss these appeals. However, it is made clear that if on a later date, the respective appellants/assessee approaches this Tribunal and satisfies the Bench adducing a reasonable cause for non-appearance then the Bench may withdraw this order and decide on merit. For the time being, due to the aforementioned reasons, these appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Finally, these appeals are dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 06/09/2016.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →