Shri Prakash S.Vyas, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-2(2), Baroda

ITA 1969/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9697 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1969/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1988-89) PRAKASH S. VYAS, C/O. PARAS SERVICE STATION, OPP. NOVINO BATTERIES, MAKARPURA, BARODA-390 010 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BARODA AYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE. BARODA [ PAN NO. AAZPV 7918 B ] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : --NONE-- RESPONDENT BY : SHRI LALIT P. JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 12/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/11/2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- II, BARODA UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89. 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. H OWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE T O INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ITA NO.1969/AHD/2014 PRAKASH S. VYAS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1988-89 - 2 - SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS 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 EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR-VS-CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT TAKING NECE SSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTI PLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, ARE INCLINE D TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HOWEVER THE AS SESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO APPLY FOR THE RECALL OF THE ORDER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED T IME AFTER FURNISHING THE SUITABLE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE. HENCE THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3. I N THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 / 1 1 /201 8 SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/11/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.1969/AHD/2014 PRAKASH S. VYAS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1988-89 - 3 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA. 5. , ! ', #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION14/11/2018 (COVER CASE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14/11/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER