PROTEAM COMPUTERS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 726/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2017AY 2012-133 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 noted that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee's authorized representative did not appear for the hearing despite proper notification.

What were the issues?

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

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 - ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

For Respondent: Ms. Badobani, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/05/2017Pronounced: 24/05/2017

This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A) – 12, New Delhi dt. 7th December, 2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2. No authorized Representative of the assessee appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal despite notifying the date of hearing through registered post. It therefore appears assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, finding support from the following decisions : Page 1 of 3

Proteam Computers Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

1.

“In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that :

“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2.

In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480(M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation 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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3.

In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the reference filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the reference filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.”

Proteam Computers Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 5. In the result, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same in limine.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →