NAV BHARAT ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. AC IT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4684/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 September 2016AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and failure to cure defects. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite notices being issued. Additionally, a defect in the appeal fee remained uncured.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

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-II’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

For Respondent: Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 02.08.2016Pronounced: 20.09.2016

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.03.2015 of CIT(A)-12, New Delhi pertaining to 2010-11 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. Even in the second round, the position remained the same. The record further shows that the Registry has pointed out a defect in the appeal fee on 27.07.2015 till date the defect remains not cured. In the absence of any presence or request for adjournment despite issuance of notice to the assessee on 06.06.2016. It can be safely 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. 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). It may be further noted that till the date of passing of this order, no request for adjournment has been placed by the Registry.

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.

I.T.A .No.-4684/Del/2015

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 20th of September, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →