UMESH KUMAR DHIMAN,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5717/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 February 2019AY 2012-133 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 no longer interested in pursuing the appeals and stay applications. Following established legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and stay applications.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals and stay applications before the ITAT. Despite multiple adjournments and notices, the assessee failed to appear or provide a new address after the registered post was returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals and stay applications should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-prosecution and failure to appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 14.02.2019Pronounced: 14.02.2019

For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the Appeals by Assessee are directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut, Dated 26.06.2018, for the A.Y. 2012-2013 on quantum and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee also filed the above stay applications.

2.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing in the stay applications as well as appeals several times. Initially, all the above matters were adjourned on the request of the Counsel for Assessee. Thereafter, none

2 ITA.No.5716 & 5717/Del./2018 & S.A.Nos. 632 & 633/Del./2018 Shri Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut. appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent through Registered Post has been returned with the remarks “the recipient has sold the house”. No other address have been given by the assessee. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeals and stay applications. Therefore, the appeals and stay applications of the assessee are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted.

3.

In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeals and stay applications of the assessee as un-admitted.

3 ITA.No.5716 & 5717/Del./2018 & S.A.Nos. 632 & 633/Del./2018 Shri Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut. 4. In the result, appeals and stay applications of the Assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →