NUCHEM LTD vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/124/2002HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01048656200203 April 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant had been consistently absent since 2007, and despite several hearings, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of prosecution. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Nucham Ltd., is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The present appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has been listed for hearing multiple times since 2007. Despite several opportunities, the learned counsel for the appellant has consistently failed to appear before the Court. The revenue, represented by the Income Tax Department, has appeared for the proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the consistent absence of the appellant's counsel. The assessee (Nucham Ltd.) has not presented any arguments as their counsel has been consistently absent. The revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, has implicitly argued for the dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant's non-appearance, as indicated by the Court's decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2024:PHHC:045333-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203-2 ITA-124-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 03, 2024 Nucham Ltd ......Appellant(s) Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: None for the appellant(s). Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing counsel for respondent-Income Tax Department ---- SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA.J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner is consistently absent in the present case since 2007. Several hearings have been given by this Court but on most of the hearings, no one caused appearance on behalf of the appellant. 2. Keeping in view, the non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant since long, the present case is dismissed for non-prescription. 3. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE April 03, 2024 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes / No Sonia Arora 2024.04.08 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →