Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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.
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