SMEC INTERNATIOANL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2992/DEL/2016Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2009-103 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 observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Following the legal precedent, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. SMEC International Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. Notices were sent to the assessee for multiple hearings, but they failed to appear or request an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite receiving notices.

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 ‘E’: NEW DELHI

Before: HON’BLE G.D.AGRAWAL & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 13.05.2019

ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2019 Date of Order : 14 .05.2019

O R D E R PER BENCH : The appellant, M/s. SMEC International Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing aforesaid appeals, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-43, New Delhi qua the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 respectively. 2. In the aforesaid appeals, notices were sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 28/02/2019 and the cases were adjourned

ITA no. 2992 & 2993/Del./2016 2 to 13/05/2019. Notices were again issued to the assessee for the next date of hearing i.e. 13/05/2019 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 appeal.

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 appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing.

4.

In view of above, both appeal filed by assessee are dismissed as unadmitted for want of prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on this 14th day of May, 2019.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →