JITENDER KUMAR PROP.,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2102/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2018AY 2007-083 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 held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal as no other address was provided. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was scheduled for hearing. Notice sent to the assessee was returned by postal authorities with the remark 'firm has closed, returned'.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee is unrepresented and notices are returned undelivered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 BENCHES “D” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI L.P. SAHU

Hearing: 05.06.2018Pronounced: 05.06.2018

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal, dated 03rd March, 2014, for the A.Y. 2007-2008, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2 ITA.No.2102/Del./2015 Shri Jitender Kumar Karnal (Haryana). 2. Notice sent to assessee through registered post has been returned back by postal authorities with the remarks “firm has closed, returned”. No other address have been given by the assessee for the purpose of service of notice upon assessee. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed.

3.

In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.

Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-

3 ITA.No.2102/Del./2015 Shri Jitender Kumar Karnal (Haryana). admitted”. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →