M/s. Munjal Auto Industries Ltd., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(1), Baroda

ITA 784/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0222 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ./ I.T.A. NO. 784/AHD/2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. 187, ESTATE, WAGHODIA, BARODA - 391760 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, VADODARA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG8588L ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 29/03/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/03/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, BAROD A (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 11.12.2012 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UND ER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 20 03-04. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE. CASE FILE REVEALS THAT NONE APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO WITHOUT ANY INTIMATION. IN THE AFOR EMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ITA NO.784/AHD/13 [M/S. MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2003-04 - 2 - REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR PETITIO N SEEKING TIME, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT IS T O DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNALS IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MULTI P LAN INDIA (P)LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE EXISTED A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR NON- REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED, TO SEEK FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 29/03/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/03/2019