SH. SANJEEV KUMAR,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The assessee neither attended the hearing nor sought an adjournment.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N. K. SAINI & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 25/09/2014 passed by the CIT(A)- Muzaffarnagar for Assessment Year 2010-11. Neither assessee attended nor any application for adjournment has been received. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal.
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 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th May, 2018.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026