ARJUN LAL KHANCHANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2951/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 June 2018AY 2010-112 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 want of prosecution, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed. The Tribunal inferred the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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: ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT

For Respondent: Smt. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 07.06.2018Pronounced: 07.06.2018

Date of hearing 07.06.2018 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of Pr.CIT, New Delhi, dated 31.03.2015 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In this case, notice was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 05.04.2018 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36, fixing the case for hearing on 07.06.2018. In spite of this, on 07.06.2018, when the case was called upon, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been filed. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his 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 he 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 7th June, 2018.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →