Shri Dharmendra J. Pandya, Kheda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 114/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8238 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA SR D R

Judgement Text

, , ,, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 114/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI DHARMENDRA J. PANDYA PROP: M/S. VISHAL TRADERS, 532, MARKET YARD, VIRPUR, DIST. KHEDA. VS. ITO, WARD 7(3), AHMEDABAD ! PAN/GIR NO. : AMWPP 2803 L ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' RESPONDENT ) '$ APPELLANT BY : --NONE-- #'%$ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. P. MAURYA, SR.D.R. & '(%)* / DATE OF HEARING 30/10/2017 +,-.%)* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/10/2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, AHMEDABAD, D ATED 31/07/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE B Y REGISTERED POST AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO . 36. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. FROM T HIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO ITA NO. 114/AHD /2015 SHRI DHARMENDRA J. PANDYA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09. - 2 - INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE IT S CASE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EF FECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LA TE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR V IEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDI A LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/10/2017 SD/- SD/ - EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EKUHK CKSJM EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YS[KK LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; YS[KK LNL; U ;KF;D LNL; ( MANISH BORAD ) (MAHAVIR PRASA D) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/10/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR. PS !'# $#! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 012) & 3) / CONCERNED CIT 4. & 3) 45 / THE CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD. 5. 678 )'12 *12. 0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89:( GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, #6) ) //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD