NARESH SHARMA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5478/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 June 2016AY 2006-074 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 held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeals and that the appeals were also barred by limitation without any condonation application.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment application filed. The notices sent to the assessee were not returned unserved.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution and for being barred by limitation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.06.2016Pronounced: 22.06.2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 5479/Del/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2005-06 Naresh Sharma, Vs. ITO, A-5, Nehru Ground, Ward-11(1), NIT, Faridabad. Faridabad. PAN: ALJPS9420Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2016 ORDER

These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the CIT(A) on 05.03.2015 in relation to the Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2005-06.

2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment application also. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee to the address given in column No.10 of Form 36 has not been returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeals. The appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2.

Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no 2

communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

We also find that even otherwise, these appeals are to be dismissed as the appeals are barred by time limitation and no application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, etc. has been filed by the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →