SH. MOHD. NAUSHAD AHMED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1477/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 September 2017AY 2006-076 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's failure to appear for the hearing indicates a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The appeals were adjourned, but the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing. The applicability of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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.

O R D E R. PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J. M. :

Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffar Nagar, dated 23rd October, 2013 for assessment year 2006-07 and dated

2 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1477 & 1478/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–07 & 2007-08 30th October, 2013 for assessment year 2007-08, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

On the last date of hearing on request of AR, the appeals were adjourned to 26th September, 2017. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeals. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also passed ex-parte orders. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee are liable to be dismissed.

3.

Considering the facts of both the cases 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 appeals are 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 :-

3 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1477 & 1478/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–07 & 2007-08

"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.

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 appeals for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeals filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

4 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1477 & 1478/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–07 & 2007-08

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed, for non-prosecution.

9 The order is pronounced in the Open Court immediately after the hearing on : 26th September, 2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →