ANITA KUMARI,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6718/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 July 2018AY 2012-133 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and address defects. The assessee was granted liberty to file an application for recall of the order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal but failed to appear for the hearing on multiple occasions, citing vague personal reasons. The defects pointed out by the registry also remained unaddressed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated absence and failure to cure 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: 02.07.2018Pronounced: 04.07.2018

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correction of the order dated 17.8.2017 of CIT(A) Karnal pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year on various grounds. However at the time of hearing an adjudication application was moved on behalf of the assessee stating as under :-

It is respectfully submitted that the case of the appellant has been fixed for today i.e. 2.7.2018. But due to some personal reasons the appellant is not in a position to be heard the appeal today.

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. Since the reasons for non appearance have not been elaborated and have been left as general and vague the adjournment request was rejected. It was also noted that the Defects pointed out by the Registry on 11.9.2017 till date, have remained unaddressed. 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.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →