Shri Bipinbhai V. Patel, (HUF), Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

ITA 3411/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8553 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BIPINBHAI V. PATEL (HUF), PLOT NO. 588, SECTOR - 22, GANDHINAGAR PAN: AABHP8837R (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 1, GANDHINAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI K. MADHUSUDAN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 09 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 - 09 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THE S E TWO ASSESSEE S APPEAL S FOR A. Y. 2010 - 11 , AR I SE FROM O RDER OF THE CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR DATED 09 - 09 - 2014 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE. LAST NOTICE OF HEARIN G W AS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09/08 /2017 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 11/09 /2017 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO. 10. DESPITE THIS, THE ASSESSEE I T A NO S . 3411 & 3412 / A HD/20 14 A S SESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 I.T.A NO S . 3411 & 34 1 2 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO BIPINBHAI V. PATEL (HUF) VS. ITO 2 REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK UN - SERVED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULI AR 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 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA VS. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). 3. BEFORE PA RTING, 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 LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPE AL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 15 - 09 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 15 /09 /2017 I.T.A NO S . 3411 & 34 1 2 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2010 - 11 PAGE NO BIPINBHAI V. PATEL (HUF) VS. ITO 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/ , / ,