SMT. ANU MAUDGIL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2377/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2018AY 2008-093 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 appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. Notice for hearing was sent, but the appellant neither appeared nor sent a representative, indicating no interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for hearing.

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 ‘D’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.11.2018

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

The appellant, Anu Maudgil , by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25/02/2015 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In the aforesaid appeal, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 10/09/2018 and the case was adjourned to 27/11/2018 because the newly posted Sr. DR in ‘D’ bench is resuming duties from 11/09/2018. The next date of hearing i.e. 27/11/2018 was informed to both the parties in the open court, but the appellant has not preferred to put in his appearance himself or through his authorized representative nor sent any request for adjournment. So, it is apparent on record that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal.

3.

Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing.

4.

In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for want of prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on this 28th day of November, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →