SARSWATI CONSTRUCTION CO.,UNJHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3349/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 September 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 presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and non-filing of adjournment application. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2008-09. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the notice was returned as 'unknown return'.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag]

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19/09/2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, dated 19/10/2015 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing was sent through RPAD post, but the same was returned by the postal authorities with the remark “unknown return,” which is

ITA No.3349/ Ahd/2015 Sarswati Construction Co. vs.ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 - 2 - placed on record. The assessee has also not filed any application for adjournment of the case. Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in pursuing with its appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, following order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/09/2017 Sd/- Sd/- vejthr flag vejthr flag vejthr flag महावीर �साद vejthr flag (लेखा सद�य) (�या�यक सद�य) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/09/2017

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)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 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

ITA No.3349/ Ahd/2015 Sarswati Construction Co. vs.ITO Asst.Year – 2008-09 - 3 -

1.

Date of dictation 19/09/2017 (covered case) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 19/02/2017 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …………… 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →