NAMIT DEVI KOTHARI,CHURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, 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 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. The notice was returned unserved due to an insufficient address, indicating the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearing and pursue the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
- New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT351 citing296 ITR 495 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A+SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT
Date of hearing 09.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 09.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of CIT(A) -24, New Delhi, dated 17.05.2018 for assessment year 2005-06.
None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing on 09.01.2019 despite issue of notice on 29.11.2018, through RPAD at the address furnished by the assessee in column 10 of the memo of appeal in form no.
The envelope, containing the notice of hearing has returned unserved with the remark “Insufficient address”. No application for adjournment of hearing has been received on behalf of the assessee. It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing her appeal.
Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "
Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.
Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then she would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition and also by taking appropriate action to correct the defects, if any, pointed out. The Co-ordinate Bench considering the petition, if so satisfied with the explanation and the actions of curing the defects, may recall this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 9th January, 2019.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, DwarkaRajkot4 Jul 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of unawareness. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of due care and attention in pursuing the...
- M/S. Ruby Gems Private Limited, Surat vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), SuratSurat13 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were general and lacked corroborative evidence, thus not constituting a "sufficient cause" for condonation. Furthermore, the ...
- Sh. Noren Mandal, New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi26 Mar 2021Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was given liberty to pray for recall of the order if they were s...
- Syndicate Bank, Noida vs Addl. CIT (TDS), GhaziabadDelhi15 May 2019Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, following established legal principles and case laws.
- Smt. Atro W/O Lekhraj, New Delhi vs ITO, New DelhiDelhi29 Apr 2019Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
