SMT. PREETI SRIVASTAVA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5200/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 November 2017AY 2009-104 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 not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing before the ITAT. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment application was filed. The notice of hearing was duly served.

What were the issues?

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

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 : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SMT BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.11.2017Pronounced: 20.11.2017

Date of Hearing : 20.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.07.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment application also. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee has not been returned unserved. The matter got adjourned many a times earlier at the request of the assessee. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non- prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2.

Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 2

3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →