Mohammednavi Rafik Khan, Vapi V. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi

ITA 1419/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2118 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J K CHANDNANI

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT , , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.1419/AHD/2016/SRT / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MOHAMMEDNAVI RAFIK KHAN, SHOP NO.5, JAY TOWER B, GROUND FLOOR, GURUDEV COMPLEX, VAPI 396 195. [PAN: AFPPK 1266G] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-2, VAPI. ( / APPELLANT) ( !' /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI J.K. CHANDNANI, SR. D.R /DATE OF HEARING : 25-04-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-04-2018 / ORDER PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD (CIT( A) FOR SHORT) DATED 30.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y) 2008-09 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.CIT(A)/VLS/119/08-09. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING O N 09.10.2017. ON 09.10.2017 THE HONBLE A.M WAS ON TOUR, HENCE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.11.2017. ON 14.11.2017 THE HONBLE J.M WAS ON TO UR, HENCE, THE CASE 2 ITA NO.1419/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2008-09) MO HAMMEDNAVI RAFIK KHAN WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.12.2017. ON 20.12.2017 AT THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.03.2018. ON 20.03.18 HEARING IS ADJOURNED TO 25.04.2018 AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL. W HEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 25.04.2018, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED THROUGH DR, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED. HENCE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 3. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. (38 ITD 320) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE M ADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 26 TH APRIL, 2018. / SURAT ; DATED : 26 TH APRIL, 2018 EDN ! $ / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. # ( ) / THE CIT (A) , VALSAD; 4. PRL. CIT, SURAT; 5. , , / DR, ITAT, SURAT; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // ) / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, SURAT SD/- SD/- ( ) ( O.P.MEENA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (C.M.GARG) /JUDICIAL MEMBER