Ashok Arjundas Makhijani v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
13 Jun 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Ashok Arjundas Makhijani v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
13 Jun 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ashok Arjundas Makhijani v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. [Akil Kureshi, J.] Prakash [B.N Karia, J.]
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL No. 506 of 2018
=============================================================
ASHOK ARJUNDAS MAKHIJANIVersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
=============================================================
Appearance :
Mr TEJ SHAH, Advocate for the PETITIONERMr VARUN K PATEL, Advocate for the RESPONDENT
=============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandand
HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA13[th] June 2018
ORAL ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Considering the nature of issue, let there be a notice for final disposal, returnable today itself. Learned advocate Mr. Varun K Patel, who is a panel counsel for the Income-tax Department and represents Baroda Circle, appears at our request on advance copy.
Appellant had challenged penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT [A]. Before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, hearing of the appeal was fixed on 22[nd ]September 2017. The record shows that on such date, neither the appellant nor his representative appeared before the Tribunal, nor any application for adjournment was filed. The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded ex parte and by a detailed order, dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had engaged a Chartered Accountant to represent him and also conveyed the date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to his legal representative. Unfortunately, he could not appear which led to appeal being heard ex parte. Counsel submitted that this is the first instance where the appellant had remained absent before the Tribunal and this is not a case where the appellant was a chronic defaulter.
Considering the representation made before us, we are inclined to give last opportunity to the appellant to appear and argue his case before the Tribunal. For such purpose, we set-aside the impugned order dated 27[th] September 2017 and restore the appeal before the Tribunal, for disposal in accordance with law.
The appellant shall deposit cost of Rs. 5,000/= with the Income-tax authorities.
Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[Akil Kureshi, J.]
Prakash
[B.N Karia, J.]
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.