SH. RAJESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4682/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 July 2018AY 2010-113 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 failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT for the assessment year 2010-11. On the date of hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal. No adjournment application was filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHARY

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.07.2018Pronounced: 26.07.2018

Date of Hearing : 25.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 05.06.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment application also. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee has not been returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2.

Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or 2

information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 26th July, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →