M/S. VENUS INVESTMENTS,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3223/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2017AY 2011-123 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 presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 was listed for hearing. The assessee was given a last opportunity for hearing but remained unrepresented. No petition for time was filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-representation of the assessee during the hearing of their appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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

आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises from order of the CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 06-08-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

I.T.A No. 3223/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 M/s. Venus Investments vs. ACIT

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Last opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee on 02/08/2017 fixing the date of hearing on 20/11/2017. Despite this, the assessee remained unrepresented. 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

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 22/11/2017

I.T.A No. 3223/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 M/s. Venus Investments vs. ACIT

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →