SRI. GANESWAR KABADI SUNDARSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT-RANGE-12(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1512/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 November 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. There was no communication from the assessee's side regarding their absence.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal had to decide how to proceed in the absence of the appellant.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.

For Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 29.11.2016Pronounced: 29.11.2016

Per George George K., Judicial Member

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.06.2016 of the CIT(Appeals)-7, Bangalore, relating to assessment year 2010-11.

Page 2 of 3 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal today i.e., 29.11.2016, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, though notice-cum-acknowledgement of the appeal intimating the hearing for this date has been communicated to the assessee. However, we find that there is neither any appearance nor any communication from the assessee’s side.

3.

Considering the totality of the facts, we are, thus, left with no option but to infer that that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, following the ratio of decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) and considering the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in such a situation; we treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the appeal in limine for want of prosecution of the case. The assessee is, however, at liberty to move the Tribunal showing out sufficient reason(s) and/or reasonable cause for failure to prosecute the case on his/her/its behalf.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4.

Pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →