MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6510/DEL/2012Status: FixedITAT Delhi02 July 2018AY 2002-032 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 noted that the assessee was not present and had not requested an adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd., filed multiple appeals before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal for various assessment years. The assessee was absent for the hearing, and no adjournment request was filed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of appeals by the assessee due to their absence during the scheduled hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

ORDER Per Bench: The assessee is in captioned appeals before the Tribunal, challenging the orders of Assessing Officers passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act read with directions of ld. Dispute Resolution Penal, New Delhi for various assessment years, as noted in the cause title above.

2.

None is present on behalf of the assessee. Notices for hearing were sent to the assessee through registered post at the address given in the appeal papers, which are deemed to have been served upon it, as the same have not returned back un-served. No any written request for adjournment on behalf of the assessee has come before us. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee deserve to be dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP).

3.

Before parting, we think it appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, then it may, if so advised, pray for recall of this order and decision on merits.

4.

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, as indicated above. Order is pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2018.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,699 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →