Hanumant Construction Pvt.Ltd., Kolkatta V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1(2), Baroda

ITA 2630/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9117 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• 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; 201; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHR I R. P. TOLANI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HANUMANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD, ROOM NO. 7, 1 ST FLOOR, RAJA BHAVAN - 111, C.R. AVENUE, KOLKATTA - WEST BENGAL - 700073 PAN: AABCH7062D (APPELLANT) VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), BARODA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI JAMES KURI AN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 03 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 - 03 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 , AR ISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, BARODA DATED 02 - 08 - 2013 IN APPEAL NO. CAB/I - 28/2012 - 13 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 271(1 ) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 2630 / A HD/20 13 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 08 I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO HANUMANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD VS. DCIT 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE. O N PREVIOUS OCCASION, I.E. ON 21/11 /2016 ALSO ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. LAST NOTICE OF HEARIN G WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29/11 /2016 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 01/03/2017 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO. 10. DESPITE THIS, THE ASSE SSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITION SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (D EL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA VS. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBER TY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 01 - 03 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.P. TOLANI ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 01 /03 /2017 I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO HANUMANT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD VS. DCIT 3 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,