SH. RAHUL RATHI,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2796/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 February 2017AY 2011-122 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 observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). However, the assessee remained unrepresented on multiple hearing dates and did not provide any reason for absence.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee before the tribunal despite proper notice, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

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

Assessee by None Revenue by Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement 01.02.2017 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 29.02.2016 of CIT(A)-1, Noida pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. In the third round also, the position remained the same neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been moved. The record shows that the notice for the date of hearing has been issued on 06.10.2016 sent to the address mentioned in Column No.10 of the memo of appeal filed which has not come back unserved. It is seen that on the last date of hearing i.e 29.09.2016 in respect of notice sent on 29.08.2016, the assessee remained unrepresented. It is further seen that no Power of Attorney in favour of the any person has been issued by the assessee. In these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multiplan 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →