AJIT SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 1, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6982/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 July 2018AY 2014-152 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 and lack of representation indicate a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal but neither appeared nor was represented at the hearing, despite receiving proper notice. No Power of Attorney was filed by the assessee in favour of any counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of representation at the hearing.

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: 03.07.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 20.9.2017 pertaining to 2014-15 assessment year on various grounds. 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 had been sent on 01.06.2018 by the Registry at the address mentioned in column No. 10 in the memo of appeals filed. It is further seen that till date no Power of Attorney has been executed by the assessee in favour of any counsel. The appeal was passed over twice. Since despite this the assessee remained unrepresented and no request for adjournment was moved. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances , I am of the opinion that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. The appeal, accordingly is dismissed.

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 Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late 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 also 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. Reference may also be made to the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) (SC) wherein their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

3.

Accordingly, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution with a liberty to the assessee to move an appropriate application and pray for a recall of the order addressing the reasons for non representation etc. on the date of hearing and undertaking to cure the defects etc. Said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limini. This order was pronounced in the open court on 11th July, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →