M/S. R.P. MILKMADE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 646/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2017AY 2008-092 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 decided that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their authorized representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed. The tribunal inferred the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal beyond mere filing.

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: 06.01.2017

PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-XVIII, New Delhi, dated 07.11.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this case, the notice was sent to the assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for 05.01.2017 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10, but neither the assessee nor his Authorized Representative attended the hearing and also not filed any application for adjournment. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeal, 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 ITA No. 646/Del./2012 AY: 2008-09 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

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

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 appeal 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, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 6th January, 2017. (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 6th January, 2017. Laptop/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →