M/S Naiyer Associates, Sitapur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.832/LKW/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal, having heard the Revenue ex parte the assessee after the assessee failed to appear on an adjourned date of which it had knowledge, held that where the Tribunal has examined the order of the first appellate authority on the impugned issues and finds no infirmity in it, the first appellate authority's order is confirmed and the assessee's appeal dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s Naiyer Associates v. Income Tax Officer 3(2) Sector-D, Aliganj Lucknow Lucknow TAN/PAN:AADFN8688C (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri. Punit Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 09 02 2015 Date of pronouncement: 09 02 2015
ORDER
PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) on various grounds.
2. This appeal was taken up for hearing on 9.2.2015 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of record, it is noticed that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 15.12.2014, the hearing was adjourned at the request of the ld. counsel for the assessee to 9.2.2015. Despite having knowledge of the date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, have no option but to hear the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. Accordingly the Revenue was heard.
3. We have carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the impugned issues and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the impugned issues in detail in the light of assessee's contentions. Since no :-2-:
infirmity is noticed in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A).
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.
Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DATED:18th February, 2015 JJ:0902
Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free