The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal due to non-cooperative and non-appearance of the assessee for consecutively 33 hearings.
The Assessee, P. Praful & Co. Agency ( India ) Private Limited filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad against the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal is related to the assessment order of the assessment year 2014-15, which was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules, Click here
The assessee appealed on the grounds that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the assessment order due to the absence of an order under section 127 of the Income Tax law, and that the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was contrary to law, equity, and justice.
The ITAT repeatedly issued notices for a hearing, but they remained unserved as the party had “Left” the address provided for service. On the 33rd hearing of the appeal, No one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The PCIT’s Counsel represented by Aarsi Prasad submitted an order passed on 26.04.20204 by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad ( NCLT ) where the assessee is one of the respondents. The NCLT order directed the Resolution Professional to clarify in the next hearing, Why a dissolution application had been filed despite multiple Interim Applications ( IAs ) being pending and the presence of two Financial Creditors ( FCs ), and that matter was scheduled for further consideration on 28-06-2024.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules, Click here
After reviewing the NCLT order, the two-member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) was not clear whether the present appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 and grounds raised by the assessee has any connection or relevance to the NCLT matters.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce any documents to prove his claims and did not cooperate with the hearings. The respondent’s counsel confirmed that the assessing officer had already given effect to the revision order. Due to a lack of evidence and material on record, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
