DEVINDER PAL SINGH KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1665/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2017AY 2008-094 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 inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals which were time-barred. Notices for hearing were sent to the assessee's address, but the postal authority returned them with the remark "Refused".

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and the refusal of postal notices.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee by : N O N E; Department by : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing : 02.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2017 O R D E R. PER I. C. SUDHIR, J. M. :

Both the above appeals have been preferred by the assessee. These were time barred and applications for condonation of delay along with affidavits were filed. These appeals were first listed for hearing on 05.04.2016 on which date the same were adjourned to 26.07.2016 due to non-functioning of the Bench. On 26.07.2016, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and both the appeals were adjourned to 07.11.2016 with a direction to the Registry that “Issue Notice by RPAD. On 07.11.2016 both the cases were adjourned to 06.02.2017. On 07.11.2016 and 06.02.2017 as the Bench did not function, both the appeals were adjourned to 02.05.2017 and the notice fixing the date was issued by Speed Post.

2.

Notice of hearing for 02.05.2017 was sent to the assessee by Post on 28.03.2017 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10 which has been returned back by the postal authority with the remark “Refused”. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeals, therefore, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address. These appeals are accordingly dismissed in default, for non-prosecution.

3. The order is pronounced in the Open Court on : 21st June, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( L. P. SAHU ) ( I. C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : the 21st June, 2017.

*MEHTA* Copy of the Order forwarded to :- 1. Appellant;

2. Respondent;

3.

CIT;

4.

CIT (Appeals);

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →