M/s. Vinayak Corporation, Arvali V. DCIT, S.K.Circle, Himatnagar

ITA 752/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3529 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 752/AHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S. VINAYAK CORPORATION 5, 1 ST FLOOR, BALAJI COMPLEX, MALPUR ROAD, MODASA-383315 VS. DCIT S.K. CIRCLE, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 301, AAYKAR BHAVAN, NEAR GANDHI TOWN HALL, HIMATNAGAR [PAN NO. AAF FV8 119 E] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : --NONE-- RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L. P. JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 29/11/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/11/2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER DATED 08.01.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHME DABAD ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED BY THE DCIT, S. K. CIRCLE, HIMATNAGAR UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE B Y REGISTERED POST AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO. 36. HOWEV ER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICAT ION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. FROM THIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE HIS CASE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS-B.N. BHATTACHAR GEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC) - 2 - ITA NO.752/AHD/2018 M/S. VINAYAK CORPORATION VS DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EFFECTIVEL Y PURSUING IT. HONBLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R-VS-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) DISMISSED THE REFERENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR N OT TAKING NECESSARY STEPS. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MU LTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO APPLY FOR REC ALL OF THE ORDER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AFTER FURNISHING THE SUITABLE REASONS FOR NON- APPEARANCE. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/11/2019 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/11/2019 TANMAY, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 29.11.2019 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.11.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .11.2019 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER