DUTCHPLY INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1578/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2019AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the repeated non-appearance of the assessee and presumed a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but failed to appear on multiple hearing dates. Despite opportunities, no representative appeared, and no adjournment requests were filed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to repeated non-appearance 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, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH

Before: Sh. SANJAY GARG & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/02/2019Pronounced: 03/05/2019

आदेश/Order

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of

the order dated 15/09/2017 of CIT (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh pertaining to 2013-14

assessment year. However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the

assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the second round also, neither the assessee

was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed on record.

2.

The record shows that the appeal was filed by the assessee on 17/11/2017 and it

came up for hearing for the first time on 09/04/2018. On the said date, it was adjourned

on the request of the Company employee Shri Anup Singh to 23.05.2018. On the next

date of hearing, adjournment was sought by the Assessee’s Counsel and appeal was

listed for hearing on 19/11/2018. On 12/02/2019 the domestic help of the Director by

name Shri Ratnesh appeared and case was fixed for hearing before the Bench on

13/02/2019. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even no

application seeking adjournment was filed. It can be safely presumed that the assessee

is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi

Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision

of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc.

3.

Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by making an appropriate prayer.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/-

संजय गग� डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, (SANJAY GARG ) ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member

03/05/2019

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

1.

अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →