SH. JEET PAL SINGH,AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, AMBALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 947/CHANDI/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 October 2018AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearances. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution. The dismissal order was later recalled, and the appeal was restored. However, the assessee failed to appear for subsequent hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings.

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 BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH

For Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Hearing: 11/09/2018Pronounced: 31/10/2018

आदेश/Order

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 14/07/2016.

2.

Brief history of the case was that the assessee filed appeal on 24/08/2016 and the same was dismissed for non prosecution of the appeal vide order dt. 06/12/2016. Later owing to the misc. application of the assessee on 20/01/2017 the case was heard and the order dt. 06/12/2016 was recalled on 11/10/2017, restoring the original appeal.

3.

The record shows that the appeal was fixed for hearing before the Bench thrice. At the time of hearing today i.e; 11/09/2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee, but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Even no application seeking adjournment was filed. It can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc.

4.

Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the

date of hearing, it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by making an appropriate prayer. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� डा. बी.आर.आर, कुमार, (SANJAY GARG ) ( DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM) �याय�क सद�य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member AG Date 31/10/2018

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

1.

अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →