Shri Bipinkumar Chelabhai Patel, Mehsana V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana

ITA 20/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4220 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 20/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) BIPINKUMAR CHELABHAI PATEL H/200, SARDADHAM SOCIETY, DEDIYASAN, DIST. MEHSANA 384002 / VS. ITO WARD -1, MEHSANA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AKZPP9179J ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. DEV, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 10/10/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/11/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS), GANDHINAGAR (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATE D 26.10.2015 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.11.2013 PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 2010-11. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE. CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD ITA NO.20/AHD/16 [BIPINKUMAR C. PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - NOTICE DATED 21.08.2018 TO ASSESSEE. IN THE AFOREM ENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITIO N SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS T O DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MULTI P LAN INDIA (P)LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR 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 REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED, TO SEEK FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 01/11/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/11/20 18