SHRI DHARMENDRA J. PANDYA,KHEDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 114/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 October 2017AY 2008-092 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 CIT(A)'s order. Despite a notice being sent, the assessee did not appear for the hearing nor filed for an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should 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 MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI, MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr.D.R
Pronounced: 30/10/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Ahmedabad, dated 31/07/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.

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 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

ITA No. 114/Ahd/2015 Shri Dharmendra J. Pandya vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09. - 2 - 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 30/10/2017 Sd/- Sd/- Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM egkohj izlkn egkohj izlkn Ekuh’k cksjM Ekuh’k cksjM egkohj izlkn egkohj izlkn ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ¼ys[kk lnL;½ ¼U;kf;d lnL;½ ( MANISH BORAD ) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 30/10/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS 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)-I, 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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →