M/S. MEGHDOOT PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,FAIZABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation and failure to address procedural defects. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, and defects regarding tribunal fees and delay were not cured.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal in limine.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 27.03.2014 of the CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 on various grounds.
However, no one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The appeal was passed over twice. Even in the third round, the position remained the same as neither the assessee is represented nor there is any adjournment on record. The record shows that in the present appeal the defect pointed out by the Registry in regard to the Tribunal fee has not been cured by the assessee. Similarly in regard to the delay of 281 days pointed out by the Registry also not been addressed by any affidavit. The record further shows that the notice has been sent to the assessee on 20.07.2016 at the address indicated in Column No.10, despite this the assessee remained unrepresented. It is further seen that the said notice has not come back unserved. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. Accordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 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).
I.T.A .No.-1418/Del/2015 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 appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 26th of October, 2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026