SURESH KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/117/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041962200112 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The reasoning was based on the fact that for the last three dates, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant, and even on the current date, the learned counsel for the appellant was not present. The court noted the presence of the revenue's counsel. The ratio decidendi is that persistent non-appearance by the appellant or their counsel, despite opportunities, leads to the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Suresh Kumar (HUF) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu & Anr. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is not detailed, but it is an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The procedural history indicates that the appellant's counsel has not appeared for the last three dates, and on the current date, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel, appeared for the revenue. The amount in dispute is not stated.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, given the consistent non-appearance of the appellant's counsel. This is a procedural issue of mixed law and fact, turning on the court's rules of procedure and the conduct of the parties. Contentions: Assessee: No arguments were recorded for the assessee as no one appeared on their behalf. Revenue: The revenue was represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel, and the judgment implies the revenue would have supported the dismissal for want of prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

201

Suresh Kumar

Commissione

CORAM: H

Present: N

SANJEEV P 1.

N 2.

E 3.

I 4.

12.11.2024 rajesh 1 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D r (HUF)

Vs. er of Income Tax Jammu & Anr.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN None for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standin

***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) No one appears on behalf of the a Even today learned counsel for th In view thereof, the appeal is dism All pending misc. application(s)

(SANJ (

1.

Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable?

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-117-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.11.2024

…Appellant

…Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng Counsel for the revenue.

) appellant for the last three dates. he appellant is not present. missed for want of prosecution. also stand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.11.13 16:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →