NUCHEM LTD vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/227/2004HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01051361200403 April 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prescription. This decision was based on the consistent and prolonged absence of the appellant's learned counsel since 2007. The Court noted that several opportunities for hearing had been provided, but no appearance was made on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by Nucham Ltd. (appellant) against an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed in 2004. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has been hearing the matter. The appellant's counsel has been consistently absent since 2007, despite multiple hearings being granted. The Income Tax Department (respondent) is represented by its senior standing counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prescription due to the consistent non-appearance of the appellant's counsel? The appellant's side has not presented any arguments as their counsel has been absent since 2007. The revenue's contention is that the appeal should be dismissed due to the prolonged non-appearance of the appellant's counsel, indicating a lack of prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2024:PHHC: 045344-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 203-4 ITA-227-2004 (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 →