MAHARANI ROYAL DEVELOPERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7004/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, relying on various High Court and ITAT precedents, held that non-attendance by the assessee makes the appeal defective and can lead to dismissal for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. Notices were sent to the assessee's address, and no Power of Attorney was filed for any counsel.

What were the issues?

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

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 correction of the order dated 22.9.2017 of CIT(A) Meerut pertaining to 2014-15 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the. The appeal was passed over. In the second round also no one was present. The record shows that notice for the date of hearing has been sent to the assessee on 01.06.2018 at the address given in the Memo of Appeal. It is further seen that till date, no Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of any counsel. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, it can be safely presumed that assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Relying 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 ensure participation. Similarly the 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 ITA-7004/Del/2017 Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →