VIKRAM SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4566/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 November 2016AY 2004-052 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 dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine due to non-representation. It was presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders upholding the AO's levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, despite notices being sent.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-appearance of the assessee. The seriousness of the assessee in pursuing the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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: 02.11.2016Pronounced: 18.11.2016

ORDER The appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the separate orders dated 20.06.2016 of the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi pertaining to 2004-05 and 2008-09 AYs respectively wherein levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO has been upheld.

2.

However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment petition was moved on behalf of the Revenue. No one was present in support thereof. The appeals were passed over twice. Even in the third round, the position remained the same. The record shows that the notice has been sent to the assessee on 26.09.2016 at the address indicated in Column No.10, despite this the assessee remained unrepresented. Accordingly, rejecting the departmental adjournment where despite notice the assessee chooses not to be present or represented, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine as it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals 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.

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. The order is pronounced in the open court on 18th of November, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →