Tikam Chand Lahoti, MAKRANA V. ITO, MAKRANA

ITA 430/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59571 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A H GOHEL
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH ES , JODHPUR BEFORE S/SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JM AND SANJAY ARORA, AM I.T.A NO. 430/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 TIKAM CHAND LAHOTI, PROP: M/S. LAHOTI TRADERS, MAKANA [PAN: AAUPL 2375F] VS THE ITO, WARD 2, MAKRANA (ASSESEEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI A.H. GOHEL, DR DATE OF HEARING 19/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/03/2012 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF T HE APPELLATE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JODHPUR (CIT(A) FOR SHOR T) DATED 26-05-2010, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) VIDE ORDER DATED 26-11- 20009. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STANDS RECEIVED BY THE REGI STRY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE (ACKNO WLEDGMENT ON RECORD). ON EARLIER OCCASIONS AS WELL, I.E., 04-10-2010 AND 15-12-2011, IT WAS OB SERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESEE, DESP ITE BEING DULY SERVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL 2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAM E IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, RELYING ON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD .[1991] 38 ITD 320, AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMENT BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADE SH IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/3/2012 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: JODHPUR DATED: MARCH 19, 2012 *MISHRA COPY TO: 1. TIKAM CHAND LAHOTI, MAKRANA. 2. THE ITO, WARD-2, MAKRANA 3. THE CIT(A), JODHPUR 4. THE CIT, CONCERNED. 5. THE D.R., I.T.A.T. 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO.430/JU/2010). BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGIST RAR) ITAT, JODHP UR BENCH 3