MAMTA KALUCHA,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4198/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2017AY 2003-043 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 appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee and, therefore, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing several judicial precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(Appeal) for AY 2003-04. On the date of hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal, nor was any adjournment requested.

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 “E” BENCH NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

Hearing: 20/04/2017Pronounced: 20/04/2017

PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by ld CIT(Appeal)-I, New Delhi dated 02.04.2014 for the Assessment Year 2003-04.

2.

Today, i.e. on 20.04.2017 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed before the Tribunal. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non- prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

Page 2 of 3 (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference. (iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

3.

Therefore, keeping in view the above, the present appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc, then this order shall be recalled.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 20/04/2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →