M/S. A-ONE QUALITY IMPEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2685/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 January 2017AY 2007-083 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 issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeals. Since the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeals, they were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for AY 2007-08. Notices were sent to the assessee for multiple hearing dates, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee also did not request any adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite receiving notices.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 G.D. AGRAWAL & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR
Hearing: 05.01.2017

(PAN : AACCA3051A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 05.01.2017 Date of Order : 12 .01.2017

O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, A-ONE Quality Impex Pvt. Ltd., by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2014 passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- IV, New Delhi qua the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.

In the present appeals, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 20.10.2016 and the case was adjourned to 11.01.2017 as none was present on behalf of the assessee. The notice for the next date of hearing i.e. 11.01.2017 was also sent through RPAD but the appellant has not preferred to put in his appearance himself or through his authorized representative nor sent any request for adjournment. So, it is apparent on record that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeals.

3.

Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeals and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeals are hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that it was prevented by sufficient cause from putting its appearance at the time of hearing. 5. In view of above, appeals filed by assessee are dismissed as unadmitted. Order pronounced in open court on this 12th day of January, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →