Dhaka Jain Swetamber Mahajan Samast, Mehsana V. The DIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

ITA 2537/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9049 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 12AA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2537/AHD/2013 DHAKA JAIN SWETAMBER MAHAJAN SAMAST, AT & POST : DHAKA, TAL. DHANERA, DIST : BANASKANTHA PAN : AAITS 9446 A VS DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) BY ASSESSEE : NONE BY REVENUE : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06/03/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/03/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DATED 16.09.201 3, REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION U/S 12AA O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 26.10.2016. ON 26.10.2016, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29.12.2016 AND THEN TO 31.01.2017 AS THE BENCH W AS NOT FUNCTIONED ON THOSE DATES OF HEARING. THE CASE WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY, I.E. 06.03.2017; HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR H EARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNME NT APPLICATION WAS FILED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE OR PETITION ITA NO. 1500 /AHD/ 2014 CHIRAG B THAKKAR VS. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY A LTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P)LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKA 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 REASONABLE CAU SE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED, TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH MARCH, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED 06/03/2017 *BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' $ / CONCERNED CIT 4. $ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. ' **' , ' , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $ %, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD