Shree Ambay Palace, SRIGANGANAGAR V. AO, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 65/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59573 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD JOHRI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH ES , JODHPUR BEFORE S/SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JM AND SANJAY ARORA, AM ITA NOS. 65, 66 & 67/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 SHREE AMBAY PALACE, GAGAN PATH, SRI GANGANAGAR. [PAN: AATFS 2086H] VS THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-3, SRI GANGANAGAR. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE-RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI VINOD JOHRI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 22/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/03/2012 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THESE ARE THE SET OF THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS, I.E., ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2003-03 AND 2003-04, CONTEST ING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR AY 2003-04, AS WELL AS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(B) AND 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY VIDE SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE, I.E., 30-05-2008 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BIKANER (THE .CIT(A)FOR SHORT). 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEALS WERE CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. FROM THE RECORD, IT IS FOUND THAT THE NOTI CE OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED, EVEN AS THE SAME WAS SENT PER REGISTERED POST AT TH E ADDRESS AS SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF PER FORM NO. 36, I.E., THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. NO NEW ADDRESS OR COMMUNICATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE REGISTRY OF TH E TRIBUNAL. EVEN ON THE EARLIER DATES OF 2 HEARING, AS AT 02-02-2011, IT IS FOUND THAT THERE H AS BEEN NO APPEARANCE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NO POWER OF ATTORNEY BY WHOM IS ON RECORD . UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEALS. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, RELYING ON THE ORDER IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD .[1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMEN T BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 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 APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/3/2012 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: JODHPUR DATED: MARCH 22, 2012 *MISHRA COPY TO: 1. M/S. SHREE AMBAY PALACE, SRI GANGANAGAR 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-3, SRI GANGANAGAR 3. THE CIT(A), BIKANER 4. THE CIT, CONCERNED. 5. THE D.R., I.T.A.T. 6. GUARD FILE (ITA. NOS. 65 TO 67/JU/2010). BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGIST RAR) ITAT, JODHP UR BENCH 3