M/S. ROSE VALLEY EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4551/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 January 2017AY 2012-132 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, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the assessment order and penalty order for the assessment year 2012-13. Despite receiving advance notice, the assessee neither appeared nor sought an adjournment for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeals by the assessee. The Tribunal had to decide whether to proceed with the appeals or dismiss them due to the assessee's absence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(b)

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’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. R. S. Syal

Hearing: 17.01.2017Pronounced: 17.01.2017

ORDER These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 22.06.2016 and 27.06.2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-40 (Exemption) against the assessment order passed u/s 144 and penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, neither assessee attended nor any application for adjournment has been received. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute these appeals.

1.

2 Rose Valley Education Society 3. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh high Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same.

4.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →