SH. VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1610/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 December 2018AY 2013-143 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, considering the assessee's non-appearance and lack of communication, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing before the ITAT. Neither the assessee nor their representative attended the hearing, nor did they file an adjournment application or provide a new address. The Tribunal had sent notice to the address provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules

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 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 29.12.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.

2.

In this case the Notice was sent to the assessee for hearing for today i.e. 20.12.2018 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10.

3.

On 20.12.2018, neither the assessee nor his 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 his Appeal.

4.

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 →