ABHISHEK KUMAR,RANCHI V. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI

ITA 51/RAN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Abhishek Kumar against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the non-representation of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not only failed to appear before the Assessing Officer but also did not comply with the procedural requirements at the Tribunal level. Despite being given opportunities to represent himself, the assessee remained unresponsive, leading to the dismissal of his appeal. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the assessee's lack of cooperation and repeated non-compliance with procedural norms.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780614 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 51/Ran/2024 (Assessment Years-2016-17) Abhishek Kumar, 86, Burdwan Compound, Near Kali Mandir, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) PAN No. ABOPA 8781 H Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Ranchi. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khub Chand Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10115907 dated 22/12/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee nor the adjournment application has also not been filed. Shri Khub Chand Pandya, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. Sr.DR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-representation. It was a submission that even before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not appeared and non- complied. It was the submission that even before the Tribunal, the assessee has been non-complied. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 51/Ran/2024 Abhishek Kumar Vs ITO 2 4. We have considered the submissions and also noticed about recalcitrant attitude of the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order of the Assessing Officer shows that the Assessing Officer has been extremely reasonable in issuing a physical notice to the assessee on 17/01/2022. Admittedly, the mistakes could happen, the assessee stood unrepresented before the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee has filed appeal against the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) within time and after filing the appeal, the assessee again went quite. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in ex parte proceedings. The assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal within time. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee also conveniently kept quite. Notices have been issued to the assessee on the e-mail address which is provided by the assessee. In any case, as the assessee has not shown any cause for non-representation before the lower authorities and because the assessee has not rectified his behaviour in not representing his appeal before the authorities even after filing the appeals, this recalcitrant attitude of the assessee cannot be permitted to be carry forward. The assessee has also been unable to produce any evidence before the authorities below. Now before us, the assessee has not appeared nor any application has been filed. It is noticed that such non-cooperative attitude are being adopted for the purpose of subsequently raising legal grounds after waiting for the limitation for reopening and other provisions to expire. This being so, considering such attitude being adopted, we are of the view that there is no Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 51/Ran/2024 Abhishek Kumar Vs ITO 3 error in the order of the ld. CIT(A), consequently, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order announced in open court on 07/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 07/10/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi Printed from counselvise.com "