AGEMO EXIM LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3389/DEL/2016Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 August 2018AY 1999-20003 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, inferring that the assessee had lost interest in the matter, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This decision was made in accordance with established tribunal rules and precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but there was no representation from the assessee for the second consecutive hearing. The assessee had previously requested an adjournment but failed to appear again.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to their absence during the scheduled hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not Applicable

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: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 13.08.2018Pronounced: 13.08.2018

Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2018 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M.

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the orders dated 03.03.2016 in Appeal No.417/2011-12 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), Meerut (for short hereinafter called “Ld. CITA”). 2. When the matter is called today, there is no representation for the assessee. It is noticed that on an earlier occasion, i.e. on 17.05.2018, the appeal is adjourned for today i.e. on 13.8.2018 on the written request of assessee’s counsel only. But today there is no representation for the assessee.

3.

In these circumstances, we find no option, but to infer that the assessee lost interest in this matter, and we are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 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 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 assessee 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.

4.

The assessee, if so desire, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th August, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →