CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, TITAWI,GORAKHPUR vs. JCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6503/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 October 2016AY 2011-124 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 the assessees were not interested in prosecuting their appeals as they failed to appear for the hearing. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that emphasize the need to effectively pursue an appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessees filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12. Notices of hearing were sent to the assessees, but they did not appear for the hearing and did not file any adjournment applications.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and does not provide any reason for absence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr.DR
Hearing: 25.10.2016Pronounced: 25.10.2016

These appeals by the assessees are directed against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A) on 01.08.2014 in relation to Assessment Year 2011- 12.

2.

When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessees have not filed any adjournment applications also. The notices of hearing sent to the assessees to the addresses given in Column No.10 of Form No.36 have not been returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessees are not interested in prosecuting their appeals. The appeals filed by the assessees are, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:-

1. 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:-

If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.

3.

Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →