SHRI MADAN LAL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2976/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 November 2016AY 2011-122 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 noted the assessee's absence and failure to cure defects, presuming a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, and a defect in the challan fee payment remained uncured.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance and failure to rectify defects, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

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-3’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 29.09.2016Pronounced: 07.11.2016

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.02.2016 of the CIT(A)-20, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 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. Even in the third round, the position remained the same. Neither the assessee was present nor an adjournment petition had been placed on record. It is further seen that the Registry has pointed out a defect in regard to the payment of challan fee on 07.06.2016 which has not been cured till date. The record shows that the notice has been sent to the assessee on 19.08.2016 at the address indicated in Column No.10, has not come back unserved. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, It can be safely presumed that the assessee who has neither chosen to represent himself and not made any effort to cure the defect, is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. 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 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.

I.T.A .No.-2976/Del/2016 Madan Lal Chaudhary vs ITO

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →