PRADEEP KUMAR GAMBHIR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2732/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 January 2017AY 2004-052 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 for want of prosecution, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if they were serious about pursuing the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear for the hearing of their appeals, and the notices sent to their address were returned undelivered. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and cannot be served.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT

Hearing: 05.01.2017Pronounced: 11.01.2017

ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals, by the assessee, are directed against separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-XXXII, New Delhi, dated 26.03.2012 for assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively.

2.

During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment was filed. Notice of hearing for 05.01.2017 was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 10.11.2016 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10 which has been returned back by the postal authority with the remark “No such person”. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeals, therefore, in our considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were 2 & 2733/Del/2012 AY: 2004-05 & 2005-06 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

1.

3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "

4.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

5.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

6.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeals for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 11th January, 2017.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →