M/S. MSX MALL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4861/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 June 2017AY 2011-122 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 appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. Notices sent to the assessee's registered address were returned undelivered with the remark 'No such company at this address'.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and the registered address is found to be incorrect.

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. I.C. SUDHIR & SH. O.P. KANT

Hearing: 15.06.2017Pronounced: 16.06.2017

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR Date of hearing 15.06.2017 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) – IX, New Delhi, dated 26.06.2014 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment was filed. Notice of hearing for 15.06.2017 was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 26.04.2017 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10 which has been returned back by the postal authority with the remark “No such company at this address”. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeal, therefore, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address.

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.

3. 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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution The decision is pronounced in the open court on 16th June, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →