Shri Rajesh Agrawal (HUF), Dahod V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITSSA 229/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1248 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.(SS)A. NOS.228,229,230,231&232/AHD/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS:2001-02,2002-03,2003-04,2004-05&20 05-06) SHRI RAJESH AGRAWAL(HUF) 4, MEGHDOOT SOCIETY CHAKLIYA ROAD DAHOD-389151 / VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAI HR7 473 Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : ALOK SINGH, CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING 16/12/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/12/2019 $%/ O R D E R PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-12, AHMEDA BAD (CIT(A)) IN SHORT), DATED 08.06.2018 ARISING IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UND ER S. 153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING A.YS. 2001-02, 220-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 R ESPECTIVELY. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE. CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD NOTICE DATED 24.10.2019 TO ASSESSEE. NONE APPEARED FOR ASSESSEE ON IT(SS)A NOS. 228,229,230,231&232/AHD/18[SHRI RAJESH AGRAWAL (HUF) VS. ACIT] A.YS. 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05& 2005-06 - 2 - EARLIER OCCASION ALSO WITHOUT ANY INTIMATION. IN T HE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY 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 PLAN 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, HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED, TO SEEK FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE . SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MADHUM ITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 16/12/2019 TANMAY, SR. PS TRUE COPY !' #' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. $ / ASSESSEE 3. ) *+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) 5. 012 33*+, *+#, 56$)$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / $% , ;/5 *+#, 56$)$ < THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16/12/2019