DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SANJAY TANEJA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6380/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2016AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2011-12. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, despite proper notice being sent.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee or their authorized representative during the appeal hearing.

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1: NEW DELHI

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH

For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR
Hearing: 29.08.2016

ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2016 Date of Order : 21.09.2016

O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 12.10.2015 of CIT(A)-18, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

However, No one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing, the appeal was passed over. The record shows that the notice has been sent to the assessee on 20.07.2016. A petition on behalf of some counsel is placed on record by the Registry. The record shows that neither any power of attorney has been issued in favour of the said counsel nor did he represent the assessee before the AO or the CIT(A). In the absence of any appropriate representation on behalf of the assessee, it can safely be presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine.

Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). It may be further noted that till the date of passing of this order, no representation or Power of Attorney in favour of counsel had been filed despite the fact that dismissed in limine on the ground was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →