M/s. Prolife Pharma, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-5(2), Baroda

ITA 1687/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8972 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1687/AHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 M/S. PROLIFE PHARMA, 14, KASTURBA NAGAR, FLAT NO.3, MATRUCHHAYA APARTMENT, ARUNODAYA SOCIETY, ALKAPURI, VADODARA 390007 PAN : AAHFP 2195 E VS. ITO, WARD 5 (2), VADODARA [ / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 24/03/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/03/2017 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, BARODA DATE D 20.02.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 13.02.2017. ON 13.02.2017, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.03.2017 AS THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONED ON THAT DATE OF HEARING. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 24.03.2017, NONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WA S FILED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PET ITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO. 1687/AHD/2014 M/S. PROLIFE PHARMA VS. ITO AY : 2006-2007 - 2 INCOME TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P)LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVI SED, TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH MARCH 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 27/03/2017 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ & / CONCERNED CIT 4. & ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. $ , $ , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $ ITAT, AHMEDABAD