ROOHUL AMIN,ALIGARH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 183/AGR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 September 2017AY 2011-122 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 held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing and had not filed any adjournment application, despite proper notice, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 against the order of the CIT(A). The appeal was called for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to prosecute it.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, AGRA (SMC

Before: SHRI A. D. JAIN

For Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Hearing: 26.09.2017Pronounced: 26.09.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA

BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A No. 183/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12)

Roohul Amin C/o M/s Steel Vs..ACIT- Circle-1, Traders, Shah Jamal, Aligarh. Aligarh. PAN No.AAOPA7862Q (Assessee) (Revenue)

Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR.

Date of Hearing 26.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2017

ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15.04.2016.

2.

When the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the

assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. I find that the proper

notice of hearing has already been sent to the assessee, which has not returned

unserved. Under these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested

in prosecuting the appeal any further. As such, I hold that the appeal is liable to be

I.T.A No. 183/Agra/2016 2

dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard I place reliance upon the following

case laws:

1.

CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC)

3.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), I dismiss

the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however,

get it revived by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2017.

Sd/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 26/09/2017 *AKV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →