SHRI PRANESH BHAGVANBHAI SIDHPURA L/H OF LATE BHAGVANBHAI LALJIBHAI SIDHPURA,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BARODA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal presumed 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 2010-11 was listed for hearing. The assessee was given a last chance to appear but remained unrepresented.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order of the CIT(A)-II, Baroda dated 30-06-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
I.T.A No. 2572/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Bhagvanbhai Laljibhai Sidhpura vs. ITO
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Last chance of hearing on 08/09/2017 was given to the assessee. 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.).
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.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18-09-2017
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/09/2017
I.T.A No. 2572/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 3 Bhagvanbhai Laljibhai Sidhpura vs. ITO
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 →- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026