Shri Sureshbhai Dalpatbhai Desai, HUF, Mumbai V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur

ITA 3020/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2899 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 3020/AHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SURESHBHAI DALPATBHAI DESAI HUF 18, SHANKAR MAHAL, SOPHIA COLLEGE, LANE, BEACH CANDY LINE, MUMBAI- 400026 / VS. ITO WARD 1 PALANPUR C/O. INCOME TAX OFFICE 2 ND FLOOR, SHRI HARI COMPLEX, ABU HIGHWAY, PALANPUR- 385001 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAE HD4 093 E ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : VINOD TANWANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 05/03/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/03/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDA BAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 28.08.2014 ARISING IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 13.11.2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UND ER S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CO NCERNING A.Y. 2009-10. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE. CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD ITA NO. 3020/AHD/14[SURESHBHAI D. DESAI HUF VS. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 - NOTICE DATED 04.02.2019 TO ASSESSEE. NONE APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO WITHOUT ANY INTIMATION. IN T HE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITIO N SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS T O 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 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR 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 REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED, TO SEEK FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE . SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/03/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/ 03/2019