M/S. SYNDICATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. PR. CIT DELHI- XVII, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4996/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2019AY 2012-132 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, following established legal precedents, held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court is not bound to answer a reference if the party at whose instance it was made fails to appear or take necessary steps.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing. Despite a prior adjournment and notification of the hearing date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal. No application for adjournment was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal beyond mere filing.

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 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: ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI O.P. KANT

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 08.01.2019Pronounced: 08.01.2019

Date of hearing 08.01.2019 Date of pronouncement 08.01.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of Pr. CIT, Delhi-17, New Delhi, for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

On the last date of hearing, i.e., 26.11.2018, the case was adjourned on the written request of DR for 08.01.2019, the date, which was informed to both the parties. Despite this, today, i.e., 08.01.2019, when the case was called upon, none turned up on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of i appeal.

3.

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.

4.

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. "

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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 it 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.

8.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 8th January, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →