ARVIND DHINGRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 54(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6057/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 April 2019AY 2013-143 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, noting the non-appearance and the returned notice, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The notice for the hearing was sent to the assessee's address but was returned with the remark 'No such person'. Neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance and the inability to serve notice, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27/03/2019Pronounced: 01/04/2019

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 31/08/2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

In this case the Notice was sent to the assessee for hearing i.e. on 27/03/2019 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No.

10.

However, the same was returned back with the postal remarks “No such person”.

3.

On 27/03/2019, neither the assessee nor his Authorized 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 the 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 un-admitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently, if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the Appeal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →