Shri Hitesh Natvarlal Doshi, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(2), Surat

ITA 2914/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2122 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, J.M. AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M.) ITA NO.2914/AHD/2012 (A.Y:2008-09) SRI HITESH NATVARLAL DOSHI, 301, AKAND ANAND APARTMENT, TAPINAGAR KUBERNAGAR SOCIETY, DATARGAM, SURAT PAN: AHQPD8116K VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI T SANKAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 21.5.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 -5 -2013 ORDER PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 29.10.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAY'S HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESS EE. THOUGH, THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS ON RECORD BUT THERE WAS NONE PRESENT IN THE COURT TO PURSUE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS IG NORED. FROM THE ABOVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL. THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND OTHERS, 118 ITR 461 OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL, MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT . THE HON'BLE M. P. HIGH ITA NO.2914/AHD/2012 (AY:2008-09) (2) COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, 223 ITR 480 DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEFAULT AND FOR NOT TAKING NECE SSARY STEPS. CONSIDERING THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRES ENT CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-5-2013. SD/- SD/- ( D.K. TYAGI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( T.R. MEENA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY PRABHAT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD