MR. RAM NARAIN MEHTA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2940/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2016AY 2007-082 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 noted the assessee's lack of representation and the unserved notices, presuming the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2007-08. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing, and notices sent to the assessee's address were returned unserved.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to non-appearance and unserved notices.

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-2’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 04.10.2016Pronounced: 17.11.2016

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 31.03.2016 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 on various grounds.

2.

However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Even in the third round, the position remained the same. The record shows that the notice has been sent to the assessee on 30.08.2016 at the address indicated in Column No.10, has come back unserved with the comment “No such Person”. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, It can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P).

3.

Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case 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 if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. The order is pronounced in the open court on 17th of November, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →