M/S MATHUR IMPORTS & EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2741/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 November 2017AY 2009-102 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 an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment requested. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest 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?

Not Applicable

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 BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Hearing: 20/11/2017Pronounced: 21/11/2017

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-6, New Delhi dated 12.02.2016 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

Today, i.e. on 20.11.2017 when this case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed before the Tribunal. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “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, this court is not bound to answer the reference. (iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for Page | 1

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →