Shri Ratansinh B.Rathod, Panchmahal V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra

ITA 510/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9174 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RATANSINH B. RATHOD OPP. MARKET YARD, NEAR YUJRAJ HOTEL, HALOL - 389350, DIST: PANCHMAHAL PAN: ABWPR6757L (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 2, GODHRA (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI ALOK KUMAR , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 02 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 02 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 , AR I SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 02 - 12 - 2013 IN APPEAL NO. CAB/VI - 4 47/11 - 12 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 510 / A HD/20 14 A SSE SSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 I.T.A NO. 510 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO RATANSINH B. RATHOD VS. ITO 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE APPELLANT - AS SESSEE. IN THIS CASE A N OTICE OF HEARIN G DATED 21/12/2016 W AS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO. 10. FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 16/02/2017. DESPITE TH E OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED , THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK UN - SERVED. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR 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 PARTING, 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 LIB ERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 20 - 02 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 20 /02 /2017 I.T.A NO. 510 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO RATANSINH B. RATHOD 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/ , / ,