M/S MERCURY RUBBER MILLS,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2191/DEL/2016Status: PendingITAT Delhi31 December 2018AY 2009-103 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 not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, citing supporting case law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Despite being served notice and having requested an early hearing, the assessee did not appear on the scheduled date of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for hearing despite proper notice.

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 BENCH : E : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Ms Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR
Hearing: 31.12.2018Pronounced: 31.12.2018

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 2192/Del/2016 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mercury Rubber Mills, Vs. DCIT, 16, Mercury House, Circle 19(1), Community Centre, New Delhi. Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. PAN : AAAFM8804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Ms Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 ORDER PER BENCH: The above two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 14th March, 2016 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11, respectively. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

These appeals were first fixed for hearing on 14.11.2018 and since the Bench did not function, the appeals were adjourned for hearing on 31st December, 2018. However, when the name of the assessee was called, there was no one present for the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment of the appeals was filed. It was further seen that the assessee was requesting for early hearing of the appeals. However, despite service of notice the assessee did not appear. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals filed by it. The appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:-

1. 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose 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 provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →