M/S. LAKSONS FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3202/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 November 2018AY 2011-122 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's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. Despite notices being sent, the assessee did not respond or provide any reason for their absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing. The importance of actively pursuing an appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT

For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.11.2018Pronounced: 30.11.2018

Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.11.2018 Date of pronouncement 30.11.2018 ORDER

PER O.P. KANT, AM:

1.

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of CIT(A),Faridabad, dated 12.03.2015 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing despite issue of notice for hearing, through RPAD at the address furnished by the assessee in column 10 of the memo of appeal in form no. 36. The envelope, containing the notice of hearing has returned unserved with the remark “Left”. No application for adjournment of hearing has been received on behalf of the assessee. It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:

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 paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition and also by taking appropriate action to correct the defects, if any, pointed out. The Co-ordinate Bench considering the petition, if so satisfied with the explanation and the actions of curing the defects, may recall this order.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th November, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →