M/S. BALAJI FRUIT CO.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3061/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 October 2018AY 2011-123 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 was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to their non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balaji Fruit Company, filed an appeal against an order of the Principal CIT for the assessment year 2011-12. Notices for hearings were sent to the assessee, but they failed to appear or seek an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite proper notice.

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 ‘A’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR
Hearing: 08.10.2018

(PAN : AAAFB2814R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 08.10.2018 Date of Order : 08.10.2018

O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

The appellant, Balaji Fruit Company, by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 passed by Ld. Pr. CIT, Delhi-12, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

In the present appeal, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 18.07.2018 and the case was adjourned to 25.10.2018 as the Bench was not functioning. The notice for the next date of hearing i.e. 25.10.2018 was also sent 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, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted. Order pronounced in open court on this 25th day of October, 2018 after the conclusion of the hearing.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →