SRI.ROBIN GEORGE,KOTTYAM vs. THE ITO, KOTTAYAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 91/COCH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 September 20182 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed. The notice of hearing was duly sent to the assessee's address.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear without any valid reason.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM

Hearing: 18.09.2018Pronounced: 18.09.2018

Per George George K., JM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order u/s 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated 15th January, 2018.

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing today, none was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. The notice of hearing has been issued to the assessee at the given address. It is, therefore, presumed that that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480

ITA No.91/Coch/2018. 2 Sri. Robin George. (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. However, if the assessee so desires, shall be free to move an application to this Tribunal praying for recalling this order, explaining reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of September, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (George George K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cochin ; Dated : 18th September, 2018. Devdas*

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT Kottayam 4. The Pr.CIT, Kottayam. 5. DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard file. BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Cochin

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →