MR. KAPIL TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4422/DEL/2016Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 December 2016AY 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, citing ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, decided that since the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, it should be dismissed. The dismissal is in limine, meaning it is dismissed at the outset.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. No adjournment application was filed. The ITAT noted that notices were sent to the provided address.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee for the hearing and the consequent dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits.

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 4.5.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relevant to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

In this case the Notice was sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for today i.e. 30.11.2016 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10, but neither the assessee nor his Authorised 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 my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address.

3.

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 →