TRIPTA RANI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-7(2), LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 998/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 December 2018AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that filing an appeal is not sufficient; it must be effectively pursued. Since the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Despite being served notice for the hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. This was not the first instance of non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing despite proper notice.

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, CHANDIGARH

Before: Sh. SANJAY GARG

For Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Hearing: 24.12.2018Pronounced: 24.12.2018

आदेश/ORDER

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

2.

The record shows that assessee has been served the notice for date of hearing fixed today. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal neither any application for condonation of delay has been filed. Earlier also, the notice was issued by the Registry but nobody put in appearance. It, therefore, appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

ITA-1006/CHD/2018 Page 2 of 2

3.

In my above view, I get support from the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee and

another, reported in 118 ITR 46l [relevant pages 477 & 478]

wherein their Lordships have held that:

“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

4.

The above view further finds support from the following decisions also:

i) CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd: 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP)

5.

Respectfully following the decisions [supra], I dismiss

the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.12.2018.

Sd/- ( संजय गग� ) (SANJAY GARG) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member

Dated: 21.01. 2019 “Poonam” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File 6.

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →