EXCELL MEDIA PRI vs. ATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee did not appear for hearings. No merits were discussed due to the absence of the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, which was collected but not remitted. The appeal was filed with a delay and the assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear for hearings. Whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI is justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A” HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A” HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA No. 2009/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Excell Media Pvt Ltd, vs. ITO Hyderabad Ward – 17(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AAACE6553D
(Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Dinesh Paruchuri
Date of hearing : 01-05-2019 Date of pronouncement : 12-06-2019 ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2014-15 against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad dated 22.09.2017. 2. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the disallowance of the employee’s contribution to PF and ESI collected by the assessee but not remitted to the Government account. The disallowance was made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. This appeal is filed with a delay of six days and an application for condonation of delay is filed along with the affidavit. The case was fixed for hearing on 17.05.2018 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the vakalat was already filed on behalf of the assessee by Mr. P. Murali Krishna on 01.12.2017.
2 ITA.No. 2009/Hyd/2017 Excell Media Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the appeal was again fixed for hearing on 01.01.2019 and none appeared on behalf of the assessee. One of the counsels Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram who was present in the court undertook to inform the counsel and at his request the case was adjourned to 01.05.2019. However, on 01.05.2019 none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, presuming that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal and respectfully following the decisions Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively and also respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise appeal No. 62 of 2009, wherein it was held that where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Courts/Tribunals have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for default. Even on merits, no decision to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) has been brought to our notice. Therefore, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2019
Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 12th June, 2019 KRK
3 ITA.No. 2009/Hyd/2017 Excell Media Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad.
1) Excell Media Pvt Ltd, 8-2-268/N/28/A, Quinn House, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2) ITO, Ward – 17(2) Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A)-5, Hyderabad. 4) Pr.CIT-5, Hyderabad. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- R K Swamy Limited, Chennai vs DCIT Non Corporate Circle 10(1), ChennaiITA 504/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. R.K. Swamy Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Ncc-10(1), ChennaiITA 2822/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 838/IND/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2022-2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026