MS. PUNEET SALUJA,MEERUT vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3292/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 January 2019AY 2007-084 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 non-service of notice was solely attributable to the assessee's conduct. Since the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging an order of the CIT(A). The appeal was listed for hearing, but the assessee and their authorized representative were absent. No communication was received explaining the absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing without any valid reason or communication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.01.2019Pronounced: 17.01.2019

ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM:

Challenging the order dated 28.02.2014 in Appeal No.367/2013-14 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi (for short “CIT(A)}, for the assessment year 2007-08, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. When the matter is called today for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee by registered post to the address furnished in Form No.36. When the notice is sent to proper address of the assessee as provided by them in Form No.36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein, the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrange with The Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail till the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal Department. Obviously the assessee had not taken any of these steps and the non-service of notice in this matter is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. Since there has been no representation for the assessee either in person or through his AR, it means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.

3.

We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Respectfully following the said decision, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

4.

The assessee, if so desire, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons then this order may be recalled.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →