RAVI KUMAR KONDURI,SECUNDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 414/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 April 2021AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not taken steps to pursue the appeal or intimate a change of address. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2010-11 and sought adjournments to avail the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee's counsel withdrew their Vakalatnama, and subsequent notices to the assessee were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear or pursue the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ S M C ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVIShri Ravi Kumar Konduri,

O R D E R This is assessee's appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-

11.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 26.03.2019 and the appeal was fixed for hearing on a number of occasions from 25.04.2019.

2.

Initially, Mr. A.V. Raghuram appeared for the assessee after filing his Vakalatnama on 21.12.2020. Thereafter, the assessee's representative filed a number of adjournment

petitions stating that the assessee intends to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and accordingly, the appeal was adjourned from time to time. However, on 8.3.2021, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he is withdrawing his Vakalatnama for personal reasons and also that the counsel has informed his intention to the assessee and requested him to make alternate arrangement for prosecuting the case before the Tribunal. The copy of the letter addressed by the counsel was also annexed to the letter of adjournment.

The tribunal, therefore, directed the registry to issue notice to the assessee along with the withdrawal letter of the counsel.

Further notice was also issued to the assessee by RPAD and the same also returned with the remarks ‘insufficient address’. It can be seen that the notices have been issued to the assessee at the address given in Form 36. However the same could not be served on the assessee as the assessee has not intimated any change in his address. Since the assessee had not taken any step to pursue the appeal nor intimated the change of address, I presume that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution with the liberty to approach the Tribunal again if there is a reasonable cause for such non-appearance.

3.

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th April, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →