M/S. RICHMOND LEISURE & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5494/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2016AY 2011-124 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 appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. The notice of hearing was returned unserved, and no new address was provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and cannot be served with notices.

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: 21.06.2016Pronounced: 21.06.2016

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 01.07.2014 in relation to Assessment Year 2011-12.

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 been returned unserved with the remark ‘vacant’. No new address has been provided by the assessee where notice of hearing could be sent. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, 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 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →