PROMETRIC TESTING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3563/DEL/2015Status: FixedITAT Delhi19 June 2018AY 2009-102 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 inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor its representative appeared before the tribunal. No adjournment application was filed.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

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: ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. BHAVNESH SAINI & SH. O.P. KANT

Hearing: 19.06.2018Pronounced: 19.06.2018

Date of hearing 19.06.2018 Date of pronouncement 19.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon, dated 24.03.2015 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

In this case, notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 23.05.2018 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36, fixing the case for hearing on 19.06.2018. In spite of this, on 19.06.2018, when the case was called upon, neither the assessee, nor its Authorized Representative with the authority appeared before the court, nor they have filed any application for adjournment. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeal.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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. "

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 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. 6. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 7. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

The decision is pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →