Shri Vinodbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Anand V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Anand

ITA 1099/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0616 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1 099 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 1995 - 96 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 1 099 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 1995 - 96 VINODBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL, .... . ...... . ... . APPELLANT PROP. SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION, 23, SHIV COMPLEX, N R. LAXMI CINEMA, ANAND. [ PAN: AESPP 6788 E ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1 , ANAND . ... ............ . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: NONE , FOR THE APPELLANT R.P. MAURYA , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING TH E HEARING : 13.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 09 .0 9 .2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - IV, BARODA DATED 21.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96 . 2. IT IS NOT ICED THAT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DESPITE NOTICE HAVING BEEN SE NT BY REGISTERED POST. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. HON BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HON BLE M.P. I.T.A. NO . 1 099 /AHD/201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 1995 - 96 PAGE 2 OF 2 HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) DISM ISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. I , THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 9 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2016. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUA RD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD