SH. DAYA CHAND GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5314/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 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, in the absence of the assessee and following established precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The notice for hearing was sent to the assessee, but neither the assessee nor their representative attended the hearing and no adjournment was sought.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of communication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules

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.

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 26.7.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

In this case the Notice was sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for 12.01.2017 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10.

3.

On 12.01.2017, neither the assessee nor his Authorised Representative attended the hearing and also not filed any application for adjournment by the Assessee, hence, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to serve the notice again and again to the assessee. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeal.

4.

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 this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →