M/S. VANASTHALI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 46/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 July 2016AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Notices were sent to the assessee for multiple hearing dates, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance before the tribunal despite repeated notices, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

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, DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 04.07.2016

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

The appellant, M/s. Vanasthali Textiles Industries Limited, by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2013 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-19, New Delhi qua the assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09.

2.

In the aforesaid appeals, notices were sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 11.04.2016 and the case was adjourned to 04.07.2016 as none was present on behalf of the assessee. The notice for the next date of hearing i.e. 04.07.2016 was also sent through RPAD but the appellant has not preferred to put in his appearance himself or through his authorized representative nor sent any request for adjournment. So, it is apparent on record that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeals.

3.

Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeals are hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that it was prevented by sufficient cause from putting its appearance at the time of hearing.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →