SUB REGISTRAR,UNNAO vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/LKW/2018Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 January 2019AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, following established case laws.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was called for hearing. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment application was filed. 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 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.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH "B", LUCKNOW

BEFORE SHRI A.D JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.86/LKW/2018 A.Y. 2015-16

The Sub-Registrar, | Vs. | Office of the DIT(I&CI), Sub-Registrar Office Unnao-Sadar, | Pragya DITRI Building, Unnao Collectorate Compound, | Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Civil Lines, Unnao U.P. 209801 | Lucknow, U.P. 226010 PAN ABWPK1568L (Appellant) | (Respondent)

Appellant by | None Respondent by | Shri C.K. Singh, DR Date of hearing | 17/01/2019 Date of pronouncement | 18/01/2019

O R D E R

PER: A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT:

This is assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the order of the ld. Director of Income Tax (I&CI), Lucknow dated 07.12.2017.

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 liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard we place reliance upon the following case laws:

- 1. 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) - 3. 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. - 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/01/2019.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.S. Kapoor) (A.D. Jain) Accountant Member Vice President

Aks –

Dtd. /01/2019

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

1.

| DATE OF DICTATION 17.01.2019 2. | DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17.01.2019 2.A | DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 3. | DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/SR.P.S 4. | DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. | DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO PS/SR.P.S 6. | DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE 7. | IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO 8. | DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 9. | DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. | DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE O.S 11. | THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 12. | THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13. | DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →