DINESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 22(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1265/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 December 2018AY 2008-092 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 inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their counsel appeared. The counsel stated they had received no instructions from the assessee to prosecute the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute their appeal before the Tribunal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Before: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri M.L. Meena

Hearing: 26.12.2018Pronounced: 27.12.2018

ORDER Per Dr. M.L. Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)- 10, New Delhi dated 29.03.2017 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

None was present on behalf of the appellant despite the date of hearing was adjourned to 26.12.2018 on the written request of assessee’s counsel Shri Ajit Kumar Jha. No adjournment request has come on record before us. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the assessee is not serious in pursuing its appeal. Our this view further stands garnished from the written application dated 26.12.2018 of assessee’s counsel to the effect that no instruction has been given by the assessee to him to prosecute the appeal even after so many calls made to the assessee. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP).

3.

Before parting, we think it appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, then it may, if so advised, pray for recall of this order and decision on merits.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →