SHRI BARU SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6182/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 December 2018AY 2009-104 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 non-representation and absence of the assessee, despite proper notice, indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but there was no representation from the assessee or their authorized representative. Despite notices being sent by registered post to the provided address, the assessee remained absent.

What were the issues?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.12.2018Pronounced: 04.12.2018

ORDER

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the orders dated 2.03.2015 in Appeal No.165/2014-15/MZR passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (for short hereinafter called “Ld. CIT(A)”).

2.

When the matter is called today for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. On 17.4.2018 also when the matter was called for hearing, 2 no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The bench directed to issue the notice by registered post. The notice sent to the assessee by registered post to the address furnished in Form No.36. When the notice is sent to proper address of the assessee as provided by them in Form No.36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein, the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrange with The Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail till the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal Department. Obviously the assessee had not taken any of these steps and the non-service of notice in this matter is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. Since there has been no representation for the assessee either in person or through his AR, it means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen 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 provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Respectfully following the said decision, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →