MR. SURENDRA PAL CHAUHAN,HAPUR vs. ITO, HAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 535/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 2016AY 2009-102 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 presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearances and delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings, and there was a significant delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal effectively, leading to its dismissal in limine.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

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-1’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 20.10.2016Pronounced: 17.11.2016

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.08.2015 of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad pertaining to 2009-10 AY on various grounds.

2.

However, no one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The appeal was passed over. Even in the second round, the position remained the same as neither the assessee is represented nor there is any adjournment on record. The record shows that on 21.08.2015 that the assessee had moved an adjournment and the date has been noted on behalf o the assessee. The record further shows that on two prior occasions i.e. on 02.02.2016 it was adjourned on the request of the assessee and on 04.04.2016, none was present. Considering the overall facts where the Registry has also pointed out a delay of 89 days. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal as otherwise there is nothing on record to show that the assessee is interested in addressing the delay. Accordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee 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).

I.T.A .No.-535/Del/2016 Surendra Pal Chauhan vs ITO Page 2 of 2 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 then the assessee if so advised would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order and decision on merit. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →