MRS. ANITA BABBAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2334/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2017AY 2009-102 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 an appeal requires effective prosecution and not just filing. Since the assessee was absent and showed no interest in pursuing the appeal, it was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment requested.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of interest in pursuing it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 “A”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 09/01/2017Pronounced: 20/02/2017

Assessee by : None Revenue by: Sh. SK Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/01/2017 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. This is appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), XXIV, new 1. Delhi dated 20.01.2014 confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Today, i.e. on 09/01/2017 when this 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.” (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

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →