Shri Surendra Pratap Jain, Mumbai V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat

ITA 2726/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0645 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VILAS V SHINDE HEARING CONCLU

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 2 7 26 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 07 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] I.T.A. NO. : 27 26 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR S: 20 07 - 08 SURENDRA PRATAP JAIN, ............APPELLANT 1402, SERENITY TOWER, OSHEWARA, NEW LINK ROAD, NR. HIRAPANNA MALL, NR. CITY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI. [A C U P J 8891 L ] VS INCOME TAX OFFIC E R , WARD 3(1) , SURAT . ...........RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY NONE FOR THE APPELLANT VILAS V. SHINDE FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUD ED ON: 17 /0 8 /16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 29 /08/16 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - I V, SURAT DATED 18. .0 9 .2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07 - 08 . 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT DESPITE NOTICE HAVING BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR I.T.A. NO.: 2 7 26 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 07 - 08 PAGE 2 OF 2 461(SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. HON BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUK OJIRAO HOLKAR VS. 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 IN 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, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T TODAY ON THE 29 TH DAY O F AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 29 TH DAY OF AUGUST ,2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD