M/S. PUNJAB CHEMICAL AGENCY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4524/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2016AY 2007-082 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, in the absence of any representation from the assessee and no petition for adjournment, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed four appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the appeals being passed over twice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The assessee's right to seek recall of the order if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 282

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-3’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 22.06.2016Pronounced: 27.06.2016

Date of Hearing 22.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement 27.06.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM These four appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the separate orders dated 30.05.2014 of CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 to 2010-11 assessment years. However, no one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The appeals were passed over twice. Even in the third round, the position remained the same.

The record shows that the notice had been sent by the Registry on 19.05.2016 at the address mentioned in Column No.10. Since it has not come back unserved, the service of notice is deemed sufficient on the assessee relying on Order V Rule 9 of the CPC read with section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee or petition seeking time, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the I.T.A .No.-4524 to 4528/Del/2014 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).

2.

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.

3.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 27th of June, 2016.

More judgments on Section 282

All 613 judgments and leading authorities on Section 282 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →