Smt. Laxmiben Rameshkumar Modi, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 836/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9015 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SMT. LAXMIBEN RAMESHKUMAR MODI, B - 404 /1, AKSHAR PARK, BESIDES MAHESH ARI SEWA SAMITI, SHAHIBAGH, AHMEDABAD PAN: AGXPM900 5 G (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO , WARD - 2(4) , AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI VILAS V. SHINDE, SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 14 - 03 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 - 03 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSES SEE S APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2009 - 10 , AR I SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 6, AHMEDABAD DATED 03 - 01 - 2014 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - VI/ACIT / WD - 2(4)/248/11 - 12 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 836 / A HD/20 14 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 I.T.A NO. 836 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SMT. LAXMIBEN RAMESHKUMAR MODI VS. IT O 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, N ONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE. LAST NOTICE OF HEARIN G WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09/01/2017 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 14/03/2017 AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN COLUMN NO. 10. DESPITE THIS, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. IT IS FU RTHER SEEN THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. 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 ASSE SSEE 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 A T LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 15 - 03 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 15 /03 /2017 I.T.A NO. 836 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2009 - 10 PAGE NO SMT. LAXMIBEN RAMESHKUMAR MODI VS. IT O 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/ , / ,