SHAH MULTILAYER (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3470/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 October 2018AY 2007-083 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. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment request filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear on the date of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 “G”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Hearing: 15/10/2018Pronounced: 15/10/2018

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT, New Delhi , dated 23/3/2017 passed u/s 263 of the Income tax Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Today, i.e. on 15/10/2018 when this case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed before the Tribunal. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “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, this court is not bound to answer the reference. (iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (del).

The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 3. Therefore, keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc, then this order shall be recalled.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/10/2018. (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 15/10/2018 A K Keot

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →