SHRI HARISH V. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-2(1), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2686/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2017AY 2008-093 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 any representation or request for adjournment from the assessee, presumed the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2008-09, arising from an order under section 271(1)(c), was listed for hearing. Despite a notice being sent to the assessee's last known address, no one appeared on their behalf.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of 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:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09, arises from order of the CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 30-06-2014, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

I.T.A No. 2686/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No 2

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Last notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 12/09/2017 fixing the date of hearing on 20/11/2017 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 appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal 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, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-11-2017 (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 22/11/2017

I.T.A No. 2686/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 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 →