M/S. APD ESTATES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ITO-WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed in limine for want of prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was there any communication. The ITAT noted that the notice of hearing was duly communicated.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee despite proper notice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.
Per George George K., Judicial Member
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.06.2016 of the CIT(Appeals)-1, Bangalore, relating to assessment year 2012-13.
At the time of hearing of the appeal today i.e., 28.11.2016, 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.
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 28.11.2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026