SH. VIRENDER KUMAR PARDESI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1863/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 October 2016AY 2005-063 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 held that an adjournment cannot be granted to a person appearing without proper authorization from the assessee. The Tribunal treated the appeal as un-admitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates. On the current date and a previous occasion, the assessee was not present. An advocate appeared seeking an adjournment without proper authorization.

What were the issues?

Whether an adjournment can be granted to an unauthorized representative of the assessee. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 19(2)

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 R. S. SYAL & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Dr. Balwan Chauhan, CIT
Hearing: 25.10.2016Pronounced: 27.10.2016

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed against the order dated 27/1/2014 passed by CIT(A) -XII, New Delhi. This matter was listed for hearing on various dates. On 21/6/2016 the matter was adjourned. Today, one Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advocate appeared and sought time. The assessee was not present in person, on last occasion as well as today. Since, the power of attorney and authority to appear on behalf of the assessee is not on record, we cannot entertain the plea of the person who has appeared seeking a short adjournment without authorization by the assessee as per Rule 16 read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It seems that the assessee is not interested in this appeal.

2.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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 case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

3.

In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. The order is pronounced in the open court on 27th of October, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →