Shri Keyur Chandrakant Bulsara, Navsari V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Valsad

ITA 2198/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5846 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2 198 /AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDBAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S.S. GODARA JM ] ITA NO. 2198 /AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 KEYUR CHANDRAKANT BULSARA .. ..................APPELLANT APARNA OPP. RA JUL APARTMENT NEAR PADMAVATI APARTMENT SANDHKUVA NAVSARI [PAN: AAUPB 6520 A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .. .. .. . RESPONDENT WARD 2 VALSAD. APPEARANCES BY: NONE F OR THE A PPELLANT RAJESH MEENA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDI NG THE HEARING : 2 6 .05 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 26 . 05. 2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER D ATED 19.03.2014 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8 - 09 . 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36 WHICH HAS COME BACK UN - SERVED. NO INFORMATION REGARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL M EANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HON BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. ITA NO. 2 198 /AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 PAGE 2 OF 2 CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH I N THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 26 TH MAY, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - S.S. GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , DATED THE 26 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 7 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD