M/S. PRAGYA VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3846/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 April 2019AY 2010-112 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution, following established case laws.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed four appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for various assessment years. When the appeals were called for hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was an adjournment application filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHUSHRI T. S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Hearing: 16/04/2019Pronounced: 16/04/2019

O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M.

These four appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learned CIT(A)-25, New Delhi all dated 29/03/2016 pertaining to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively.

2.

At the threshold, we noted that when these appeals were called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor adjournment application was filed. We find that proper notice of hearing has already been sent to the assessee. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting these appeals. As such we hold that these appeals are liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard we place reliance upon the following case laws:

~ 2 ~

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 these appeals filed by the assessee for non prosecution. However, the assessee is at liberty to move application u/s 254 of the Act in case the assessee so desires.

4.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 16/04/2019)

Sd/. Sd/. ( H. S. SIDHU ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:14/04/2019 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T.,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →