RAJNESH KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT X, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 279/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2019AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the consistent non-appearance of the assessee indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 263 of the IT Act. The appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but the assessee or their representative did not appear on any of these dates. Despite sending notices, the assessee remained absent.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance and lack of prosecution.

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(3)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, DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR
Hearing: 06.05.2019Pronounced: 06.05.2019

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajnesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Pr. CIT-X, 116, Devika Tower, New Delhi. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN: AFQPA1657C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2019 ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21st December, 2015 passed u/s 263 of the IT Act by the PCIT, Delhi -10, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.

This appeal was fixed for a number of times and was fixed last on 5th March, 2. 2019. However, since none appeared on behalf of the assessee on that date, again notice was sent through RPAD fixing the appeal for hearing on 6th May, 2019.

However, when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This type of conduct on the part of the assessee shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal field by him. Therefore, following the decisions mentioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:-

1. 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.).

3.

However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. The decision was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e., on 06.05.2019.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →