PBIL APEX CONSORTIUM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5210/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 June 2016AY 2010-112 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 the assessee and their representation, decided to dismiss the appeal. It also noted that the assessee could seek a recall of the order if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but failed to appear for multiple hearings despite adjournments and a final notice by RPAD. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of representation before the Tribunal.

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: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.O.P.KANT

For Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.06.2016Pronounced: 22.06.2016

Date of Hearing 14.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement 22.06.2016 ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 28.05.20134 of CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year. However, No one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of 2. hearing, the appeal was passed over twice. Even in the third round also, the position remained the same. The record shows that the appeal came up for hearing on 19.02.2015; 01.07.2015; and 26.10.2015 and on each of these dates it was adjourned on the written request of the assessee. On the last date of hearing i.e. 22.02.2016, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Notice was directed to be issued by RPAD which has been issued on 25.04.2016 at the address mentioned in Column No.10 since the same has not come back unserved. Thus in view of order 5 Rule 19A of the CPC read with section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the service of notice is deemed sufficient on the assessee. It is further seen that In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the absence of any representation or petition

I.T.A .No.-5210/Del/2013 seeking time till the date of passing of this order, 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).

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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 22 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 →