M/S. PEARL DRINKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5060/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 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 held that the assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, following established legal precedents. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for a recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment application filed. The ITAT had sent a notice to the assessee via RPAD.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. T.S. KAPOOR

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 17.07.2018Pronounced: 17.07.2018

Date of hearing 17.07.2018 Date of pronouncement 17.07.2018 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, A.M.:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, dated 25.05.2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

In this case, notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 22.05.2018 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36, fixing the case for hearing on 17.07.2018. Despite this, today i.e. 17.07.2018, when the case was called upon, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeal.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:

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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate petition and also by taking appropriate action to correct the defects, if any, pointed out. The Co-ordinate Bench considering the petition, if so satisfied with the explanation and the actions of curing the defects, may recall this order.

The decision is pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →