What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and had not filed any adjournment application. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-11, contesting the disallowance of expenses and a cash deposit. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite proper service of notice.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the assessee's non-appearance.

Shri Vijal Virendra Shah vs ITO | ITAT Ahmedabad 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH – “SMC”, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV

Hearing: 10/10/2017Pronounced: 10/10/2017

आदेश/O R D E R

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-13, Ahmedabad dated 31.3.2015 passed for the Asstt.Year 2010- 11.

In the appeal, the Assessee has contested disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.46,445/- and cash deposit of Rs.38,69,328/- as set out in the grounds of appeal.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing was sent through RPAD post which was duly served upon the assessee, as AD slip has been placed on record. No application for adjournment of the case stating reasons for non-appearance in the year has

ITA No.1783/Ahd/2015 2

been filed. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee is not interested to prosecute its appeal, therefore, it is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Court on 10th October, 2017 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI VIJAL VIRENDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments