Gaurav Agrawal, Nagpur V. Income tax Officer, 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 184/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3206 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H WANARE
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR E-BENCH, NAGPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) . . , . / , . . BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 184/NAG/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 GAURAV AGRAWAL (HUF), 78 FRIENDS COLONY, KATOL ROAD, NAGPUR-440 013. PAN: AACHG 9520 R VS. I.T.O. WARD-2(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NAGPUR. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE ! / RESPONDENT BY : H. WANARE ' ! #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 31-01-2013 &' ! #$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-2013 () / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 19-02-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR: I. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GIFT OF RS. 1,10,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HUF IS N OT EXEMPT UNDER PARA A TO PROVISO TO SUB CLAUSE V TO CLAUSE 2 OF SECTION 56. II. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, ERRE D IN NOT HOLDING THAT A GIFT TO HUF IS A GIFT TO INDIVIDUAL ONLY AS PER THE LAW. III. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-I, IF NO T FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GAYADIN VS. HANUMAN PRASAD (2001) 1 SCC 501 AND DECISION OF THE ITAT IN CASE OF VINIT BHALOKAR VS. ITO RAJKOT ITA NO. 583/RJT/2007. IV. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF H EARING WITH THE PERMISSION OF TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 184/NAG/2012 GAURAV AGRAWAL (HUF) 2 2. ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT-I, NAGPUR ON 18-05-2012. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER W ILL BE HEARD ON 04-01-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, NOR THE RE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPO RTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). IT(SS )A NO. 01/MUM/2008 SUNNY SOUNDS P. LTD., 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROV ISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED. * +, - *# / (01 ! ' +23 ! # 45. ORDER PRONOUNCED BY E-BENCH AT MUMBAI ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 +7' 0,# ' - 789 / 31 $ 2013 ' () &':# ; . SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. GUPTA ) ( / RAJENDRA ) (, / JUDICIAL MEMBER % (, / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +7' MUMBAI, ;( DATE: 31 ST JANUARY, 2013 TNMM COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR, ITAT, NAGPUR 6. GUARD FILE :# # //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT