M/S EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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, following established precedents, treated the appeal as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed without adjudication on its merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor its representative appeared. No adjournment request or updated address was filed. The Tribunal inferred the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the consequence of the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and prosecute its appeal before the Tribunal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI L.P. SAHU
O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 25.1.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.
In this case the Notice was sent to the assessee for hearing for today i.e. 31.12.2018 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10.
On 31.12.2018, neither the assessee nor its Authorised Representative attended the hearing and also not filed any Application for adjournment or nor filed the fresh address before the Tribunal, hence, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to serve the notice again and again on the same address. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. Page 1 of 3
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the Appeal.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026