“service of notice”

Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2-13-14 Neelachal Neelachal Gramya Gramya Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Bank,(Succeeded By Odisha Bank,(Succeeded By Odisha Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Gramya Bank), Head Office, Gramya Bank), Head Office, Gandamunda, Gandamunda, Khandagiri, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaaln 0450 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 7/02 2/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 7/02 2/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr. Cit Passed Cit Passed U/S.263 U/S.263 Of Of The The Act, Act, Dated 27.4.2020 27.4.2020 In Appeal No.Itba/Com/F/17/2020 /F/17/2020-21/1026986050(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 2. Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

granted to the assessee. It would also be advisable to send notice of hearing through atleast two of the various modes of service of notice as provided under the provisions of section 282 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that email normally sent sometimes goes to the spam

Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Association, Dang vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.35/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Court Hearing) Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Association,O, Saputara, At & P.O. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan (Vejalpur), Nr. Talahwa,Dang-394720 Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnnagar-Phrahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabtd 9827 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

vigilant in future and to make proper compliance of the notice(es) and will not default in future for the purpose of service of notices through ITBA portal. The ITA No35/SRT/2020 A.Y. 2019-20 Dang Jilla Paragliding Adventure Association Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has a good

M/S Dasmesh Cold Storage, Nakodar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

file of the Pr. CIT to pass a speaking order de novo after granting proper opportunity of being heard with valid service of notice in view of principles of natural justice. 9. The Ld. DR stands by the impugned order. However, he has no objection to the request

Shrimati Ritu Kapoor, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-III(2), Srinagar

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

return of income filed. The Ld. CIT(A) has uphold the validity of 4 Ritu Kapoor v. ITO reassessment proceedings qua the service of notice u/s 148 of the act, vide para 3.1, by observing as under: “3.1. I have considered the facts of the case and the written submissions ... general in nature and does not require adjudication. The Grounds No. 2 & 3 are in respect of validity of reassessment proceedings qua the service of notice u/s 148. It has been alleged by the appellant before the Assessing Officer as well as before me that no notice

Shri Jayantkumar Parshottambhai Vadodariya, Gondal, Dist. Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (3) (5), Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarasstt.Year :2012-13 Jayantkumar Parshottambhai Vadodaria Ito, Ward-2(3)(5) 9/11, Bhagvatpara Vs Rajkot. Opp: Rdc Bank Gondal, Rajkot. Pan : Aaxpv 6758 P

Asst.Year 2012-13. 2. At the time of hearing, neither the assessee nor anybody on his behalf remained presentin the Court despite service of notice. No application seeking adjournment has been filed. On several occasions in the past also the assessee has remained unrepresented 2 before us.On

Jalaram Cottex, Jasdan vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 Jalaram Cottex Acit, Cir.2 Ahmedabad Highway Vs Rajkot. Jasdan.

opportunities to prosecute its appeals, but all the while, the assessee remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings before us, despite service of notices. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee except coming forward to file appeals before the appropriate authorities, is not interested in following up with

Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Income Tax Officer, 59, Shradha Deep Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat Vs Singanpore, Causewayroad, Ved Road, Surat-395004 Pan No: Amupv 4454 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 16.01.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac”/Ld.Cit(A) Dated 28.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Nirav B Vaghasiya Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Same Is Duly Reflected In Form No 26As Of The Appellant. 1.1 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Capital Gain On Sale Of Property Was Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Partnership Form & No Revenue Loss Incurred To The Department. 1.2 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Credit To The Appellant Though No Income Against Such Tds Credit Was Earned By The Appellant Against Such Tds Credit.

rightly denied by CPC. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 6. None, appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice of hearing through Registered Postal Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) on more than two occasion. Therefore, I left no option, but to decide the appeal