MANISH KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2574/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 August 2016AY 2009-103 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, following established precedents, decided to treat the appeal as un-admitted due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment sought. The Tribunal considered the relevant rules and case laws regarding non-appearance of the appellant.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing.

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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

Hearing: 08.08.2016Pronounced: 24.08.2016

ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.11.2000 of CIT (A)-X, Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing i.e. 08.08.2016, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as un-admitted.

3.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been 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 Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

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 appeal for non-prosecution.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Court on 24.08.2016

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →