SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LIMITED,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be uninterested in pursuing the appeal. Following established case laws, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 was listed for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor filed an adjournment application. Proper notice of hearing was sent to the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
- New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT351 citing296 ITR 495 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI A.D JAIN & SHRI T.S. KAPOOR
PER: A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT:
This is assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly dated 29.06.2017. 2. When this appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. We find that the proper notice of hearing had been sent RPAD to the assessee, which has not returned unserved. Under these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further. As such, we hold that the appeal is
2 ITA No. 123/Lkw/2018
liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard we place
reliance upon the following case laws:
CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC)
Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we
dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The
assessee may, however, get it revived by showing sufficient cause for
non-appearance.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (T.S. Kapoor) (A.D. Jain) Accountant Member Vice President
Aks – Dtd. 08 /03/2019 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026