SHRI PARTAP SHARMA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4004/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 August 2018AY 2005-063 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 non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was scheduled for hearing twice. Despite notification, the assessee failed to appear on both occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “C/SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 07.08.2018Pronounced: 07.08.2018

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, Dated 16.04.2015, for the ay 2015-2016, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2 ITA.No.4004/Del./2015 Mr. Pratap Sharma, Faridabad.

2.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing twice through registered post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed as unadmitted.

3.

Keeping in view the legal position that mere filing of appeal 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.) and also the Judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukoji Rao Halkar vs. CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP), 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 the above, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed as unadmitted.

3 ITA.No.4004/Del./2015 Mr. Pratap Sharma, Faridabad.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →