M/S. MATHUR IMPORTS & EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2923/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 December 2016AY 2009-102 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 the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. However, the assessee remained unrepresented during the hearing despite the appeal being adjourned multiple times.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute their appeal before the Tribunal.

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: 08.11.2016Pronounced: 28.12.2016

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 12.03.2014 of CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi pertaining to 2009–10 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 thrice. In the fourth round also, neither anyone was present nor any adjournment application has been moved by the assessee. It is seen that on the last date of hearing i.e. 26.09.2016, the appeal was adjourned on the written request of the assessee’s counsel and the date of hearing has been noted on behalf of the assessee on the adjournment application on record. Despite this, the assessee remained unrepresented. 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. Multiplan 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 liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →