Mrs. Meena Nagda, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1), Baroda

ITA 1935/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 193520514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1935/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2005-06) MRS. MEENA NAGDA, 11, MAMTA SOCIETY, ELLORA PARK, BARODA V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BARODA PAN: [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- NONE RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI S A BOHRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING:- 22-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 23-09-2011 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 16-12-2010. THE ONLY GROUND IS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ADDING RS.101200/- U/S 68 FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS AND THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND REJEC TING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS ALR EADY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF RS.101200/- AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUST. 2 FROM THE RECORDS, I HAVE NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING IN THE PAST ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. E ARLIER IT WAS FIXED ON 07-09-2011 AND ON THAT DATE A LETTER WAS R ECEIVED THROUGH WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT DUE TO INSUFFICIEN T TIME A LAWYER COULD NOT BE APPOINTED. IT WAS REQUESTED TO GRANT A DJOURNMENT SO THAT PROPER SUBMISSIONS CAN BE MADE. THEREAFTER THE APPEAL IS NOW FIXED TODAY AND A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 08-09- 2 ITA NO.19 35/AHD/2011 2011. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE ABOUT THE PENDE NCY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE A FORE-MENTIONED LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT BUT DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIAN CE OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEA RING TILL THE RISE OF THE COURT, NO ONE WAS PRESENT TO REPRESENT THIS APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRA O HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 AND THE DELHI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT.LTD. 38 ITD 320, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 23-09-2011 SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 23-09-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. MRS. MEENA NAGDA, 11, MAMTA SOCIETY, ELLORA PARK , BARODA 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BARODA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-III, BARODA 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-SMC, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD 3 ITA NO.19 35/AHD/2011