SH. MAYANK SINGHEE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5465/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2017AY 2011-125 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 appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, as the assessee failed to appear and pursue the appeal. The assessee can pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT for assessment year 2011-12. Despite receiving notice, the assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.

1 I. T. Appeal No. 5465/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2011–12. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES: “E” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I. T. Appeal No. 5465/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2011–12. Shri Mayank Singhee, Deputy Commissioner 4 – A, Street : C – I, Vs. of Income Tax, S a i n i k F a r m, Central Circle : 11, N e w D e l h I – 110 062. N e w D e l h i. PAN : BXVPS 2209 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : N O N E; Department by : Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT [DR]; Date of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 O R D E R. PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J. M. :

This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)–XXXI, New Delhi, dated 31st July, 2014 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing through Registered Post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite service of the notice. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is 2 I. T. Appeal No. 5465/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2011–12. no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under :-

"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, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "

5.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

3 I. T. Appeal No. 5465/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2011–12.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal, but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

8.

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

9 The order is pronounced in the Open Court immediately after the hearing on : 28th September, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →