WESCO AUTO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 226/DEL/2017Status: PendingITAT Delhi24 April 2017AY 2007-082 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 was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing despite proper notice. No adjournment application was filed.

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(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 ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Hearing: 20/04/2017Pronounced: 24/04/2017

सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2017 ORDER

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-9, New Delhi dated 25.10.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through RPAD, but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Even no application seeking adjournment was filed. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUN”.

3.

Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such I hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, I place reliance upon following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del)

2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC). 4.

4.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), I dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day 24 April, 2017

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →