INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,VIJAYALAKSHMI V,PALAKKAD vs. THE ACIT-TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 538/COCH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 January 2019AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and following established precedents, presumed disinterest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment request was filed, and the notice of hearing was duly sent to the assessee's address.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance and lack of prosecution for their appeal before the Tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 16.01.2019Pronounced: 16.01.2019

Per Chandra Poojari, AM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 31.08.2018. The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017 (4th Quarter).

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing today, none was present on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been filed. The notice of hearing has been issued to the assessee at the given address. It is, therefore, presumed that that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the

ITA No.538/Coch/2018. 2 Ms.Vijayalakshmi V. case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. However, if the assessee so desires, shall be free to move an application to this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order, after explaining reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (George George K.) (Chandra Poojari) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Cochin ; Dated : 16th January, 2019. Devdas*

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (A), Thrissur. 4. The CIT Thrissur. 5. DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard file. BY ORDER,

AR-ITAT- Cochin

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →