SH. DINESH BANSAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6955/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 November 2017AY 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 held that since the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not request an adjournment, it indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the CIT(A). The ITAT sent a notice for hearing via registered post, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.

Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Hearing: 23.11.2017Pronounced: 23.11.2017

ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of learned CIT(A)- V, New Delhi dated 23.10.2014 passed for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

None is present on behalf of the assessee despite the notice for hearing was sent through registered post at the address given in the appeal papers.

There is no written request on record for adjournment on behalf of the assessee. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP).

3.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as indicated above.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →