NITIN YADAV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 44(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6885/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 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 was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and unaddressed defects. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but neither appeared nor addressed defects pointed out by the registry. Notices sent to the assessee's address were returned unserved.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and address defects.

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: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 02.07.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 22.8.2017 of CIT(A)- 15 New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of assessee despite the fact that notice for the specific date of hearing has been sent on 22May, 2018 at the address mentioned in column No. 10 in the memo of appeals filed. The said notice has come back unserved with the comment dated 31.5.2018 “door lock” on 31.05.18 and comment dated 11.6.2018 “Poochh-taachh ke baad…….”. It is further seen that various defects have been pointed out by the Registry on 15.11.2017 which have remained unaddressed till date. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances I have no alternative but to presume that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed.

2.

Reliance is placed on the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) wherein it has been held that issuance of notice under Rule 19 by itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non- attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address etc. and participation. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court also in the case of Estate of Late

ITA-6885/Del/2017 Page 2 of 2 Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has also held “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.” The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) has also returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. Reference may also be made to the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) (SC) wherein their Lordship of the Apex Court held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. Accordingly considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution with a liberty to assessee to move an appropriate application and pray for a recall of the order addressing the reasons for non representation on the date of hearing and undertaking to cure the defects etc. Said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →