M/S. VIBHA OVERSEAS EXIM PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4121/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 June 2018AY 2011-123 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, following precedent, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if they wished to explain their absence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but there was no representation from the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee's registered address was returned undelivered with the endorsement 'left'.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee and the appropriate course of action for the Tribunal in such a scenario.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 26.06.2018Pronounced: 26.06.2018

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. This is an appeal by the Assessee against the orders dated 10.03.2015 in Appeal No. 164/2014-15 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called “Ld. CITA”).

2.

When the matter is called today, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee by registered post on the address recorded in Form No.36 submitted by the assessee with prepaid postage returned with the endorsement of the postal authorities “left”. In this situation no purpose would be served by ordering notice against to the same address. No new address is available

2 now. There is neither any application for adjournment nor for change of address in the record. In view of above, it is presumed that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3.

We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen 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 provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Respectfully following the said decision, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

4.

The assessee, if so desire, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons then this order may be recalled.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th June, 2018 Dated: 26 .06.2018 VJ

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →