CSAV GROUP (INDIA) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 16/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 September 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 noted the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant despite proper notice being served. The notice was returned unserved with a remark of refusal to accept.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and refusal to accept notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(4)

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 Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Respondent: Ms. Anchal Khandelwal, D.R
Hearing: 20.09.2018Pronounced: 20.09.2018

ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 04.11.2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(4) and directions of DRP-1 New Delhi dated 24.09.2015 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

None was present on behalf of the appellant despite the notice for hearing was issued and sent to the assessee through registered post at the address given in the appeal papers, which has been received back un-served with the postal remark “Refused to accept”. The refusal to accept the notice amounts to service of notice as per law. No adjournment request has come on record before us. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the assessee is not serious in pursuing its appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP).

3.

Before parting, we think it appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, then it may, if so advised, pray for recall of this order and decision on merits.

More judgments on Section 144C(4)

All 61 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →