Kusum Agarwal, Ajmer V. ITO Ward 2(1), Ajmer

ITA 58/JPR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9431 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 58/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 Shri Anand Kumar Hudda HE-602-L, Hanuman Nagar Ext. Sirsi Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Circle-3 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAIPH 7011 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CITa lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/10/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 26.07.2018 for the Assessment year 2013-14. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench observed that in spite of service of notices, the assessee neither appeared on the date of hearing nor any adjournment application was filed. The assessee was provided various opportunities to contest the case for which details of service of notices served upon him are as under:- Date of Notice Date of Hearing Date of Service of Notice 27-09-2022 19-10-2022 28-09-2022 30-08-2022 27-09-2022 31-08-2022 21-07-2022 30-08-2022 29-07-2022 30-06-2022 21-07-2022 07-07-2022 2 It is also noteworthy to mention that the ld. Counsel of the assessee Shri Shrwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate vide his letter dated 29-06-2022 had prayed for withdrawal of his power of attorney which was permitted by the Bench and even after that date the assessee was given Four more opportunities as tabulated above. It shows that the assessee is not serious to pursue his case. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine as pronounced in the open Court on 19-10-2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalashmi) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 31 /10/2022. Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Anand Kumar Hudda,, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 58/JP/2021} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 3