SWASTIK BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,MEERUT vs. CIT, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3006/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2016AY 2008-092 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, citing precedents and the assessee's consistent non-appearance, held that the appeal was not being prosecuted. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but the assessee or their counsel failed to appear on each occasion. Despite prior adjournments and communication, the assessee remained absent for the final hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for hearings. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal beyond mere filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT

Hearing: 27.09.2016Pronounced: 28.09.2016

PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, dated 25/03/2013 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. Earlier the case was fixed for several times but on the request of assessee’s counsel as well as due to non-appearance on behalf of the assessee, the case was adjourned. Lastly, on 23.05.2016, the case was adjourned to 27.09.2016 on the written request of assessee’s counsel, which was informed to both the parties. Despite this on 27.09.2016, when the case was called out, again none responded on behalf of the assessee, nor has any application for adjournment been received on behalf of the assessee. It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were 2 AY: 2008-09 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

3.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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 paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "

4.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New

5.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

6.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 28th Sept., 2016. (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28th September, 2016. Rk/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →