What did the Tribunal hold?

As no one appeared for the appellant-assessee on multiple hearing dates and the notices were returned unserved, the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the appeal in default.

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. Despite notices being sent via registered post and RPAD to the given address, the postal authorities returned them unserved with the remark that the addressee had left. No alternative address was available.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee and the inability to serve notices due to the assessee having left the given address.

M/S. Giriasho Company Pvt. Ltd… vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2017

Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017 O R D E R. PER I. C. SUDHIR, J. M. :

Since beginning no one is appearing for the appellant – assessee. On 2nd January, 2017 the notice of hearing of the appeal was issued on 3.01.2017 through Registered Post for 23.02.2017. On 23.02.2017 none was present for the appellant and notice was issued to the assessee on its given address through RPAD on 2nd March, 2017 for 20.04.2017.

None is again present for the appellant on 20.04.2017. It is pertinent to note over here that both the above notices issued on the given address of the appellant through RPAD have been returned un-served with the remark of the postal authorities that the addressee has left. Since no other address is available on record to issue fresh notice, we have no option, but to dismiss the appeal in default. It is ordered accordingly.

2. The order is pronounced in the Open Court on : 28th April, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( O. P. KANT ) ( I. C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : the 28th April, 2017.

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

Respondent;

CIT;

CIT (Appeals);

DR, ITAT, ND.

M/S. GIRIASHO COMPANY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments