PARVATIYA PLYWOOD (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(3), NEW DELHI
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, inferring the assessee's lack of interest, decided to treat the appeal as un-admitted. The appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment request or updated address was provided.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance before the Tribunal for the hearing of their appeal.
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
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 21/02/2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-38, Delhi relevant to assessment year 2013-14.
In this case the Notice was sent to the assessee for hearing i.e. on 28/03/2019 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10.
On 28/03/2019, neither the assessee nor its 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 its Appeal.
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026