RAJINDER NATH MAHENDRU,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2793/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 February 2017AY 2008-092 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 dismissed the appeals in limine as the assessee was not prepared to argue and did not provide further intimation, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. At the time of hearing, the assessee's authorized representative sought an adjournment, stating the assessee intended to appoint another counsel.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear or be adequately represented for the hearing of the appeals, leading to their dismissal for want of prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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-II’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 16.11.2016Pronounced: 01.02.2017

ORDER These three appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the consolidated order dated 17.02.2016 of CIT(A)-34, New Delhi pertaining to 2008-09 to 2010- 11 assessment years on various grounds.

2.

However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved by the Ld.AR stating that the appeals could not be prepared as the assessee has decided to appoint another counsel. The record shows that the assessee has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of M/s B.R.Maheshwari & Co. The record further shows that on the last occasion i.e. 29.09.2016, the said counsel had sought an adjournment stating that he has not been able to prepare the appeals. In these circumstances, in the absence of any Power of Attorney in favour of any other person and the next date of hearing having been noted by the AR’s office, the adjournment if required would have been moved by the assessee. The appointed counsel not instructed to argue and no further intimation before the ITAT from the assessee leads to the conclusion that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P).

3.

Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →