VIJENDER SINGH,ROORKEE vs. ITO, WARD- 2, ROORKEE
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 inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative attended. No adjournment request or new address was provided.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance for the hearing and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal in limine.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 30.6.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A), Haldwani relevant to assessment year 2009-10. 2. In this case the Notice was sent to the assessee for hearing for today i.e. 06.03.2019 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10. 3. On 06.03.2019, neither the assessee nor his Authorised Representative attended the hearing and also not filed any Application for adjournment or nor filed the fresh address before the Tribunal, hence, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to serve the notice again and again on the same address. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his Appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the
Page 1 of 3
reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the Appeal.
In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced on 06-03-2019. Sd/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:06/03/2019 SRBhatnagar
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026