RAJ KUMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7003/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2018AY 2007-083 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, considering the assessee's non-appearance and failure to prosecute the appeal, dismissed it for non-prosecution. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall by explaining the reasons for non-representation and undertaking to cure defects.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT but failed to appear for the hearings and did not address defects pointed out by the registry. No Power of Attorney was executed in favour of any counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and address procedural 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: 03.07.2018Pronounced: 06.07.2018

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correction of the order dated 31.8.2017 of CIT(A) Meerut pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

Since no one was present in support of the application the appeal was passed over. In the second round also no one was present. It was noted that the Registry has pointed out various Defects on 23.11.2017 which till date, have remained unaddressed. It is further noticed from the record that no Power of Attorney has been executed by the assessee till date 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 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 the 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.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →