AMORN NARANG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2481/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2016AY 2005-062 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 presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation and failure to remove defects. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Despite multiple notices and adjournments, the assessee remained unrepresented during the hearings. A defect pointed out by the registry also remained unremoved.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute their appeal effectively, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution.

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-II’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 01.11.2016Pronounced: 16.12.2016

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 25.02.2015 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi pertaining to 2005–06 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. In the third round also, neither anyone was present nor any adjournment has been moved by the assessee. The record shows that when the appeal came up for hearing on 21.07.2016, no one was present on behalf of the assessee thereafter another notice was issued to the assessee at the address given in column No. 10 in the memo of appeal filed fixing the date of hearing as 07.09.2016. In response to the same, an adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the assessee wherein accepting the request, adjournment was granted. The next date of hearing as 01.11.2016 has been noted on behalf of the assessee. Despite this fact, on the date of hearing neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed on record. It is further seen that the Registry has pointed out a defect by issuance of notice on 15.10.2015 which till date remains not removed. In the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P).

3.

Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at I.T.A .No.-2481/Del/2015 Amorn Narang vs ITO

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →