SH. D.P.S. KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1783/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2016AY 2006-072 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 significant delay in filing the appeal. It was presumed that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07. Despite multiple opportunities and proper notice, the assessee remained unrepresented during the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal, leading to its dismissal.

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: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Ms. Amrapalli Dass, CIT DR
Hearing: 29.09.2016Pronounced: 30.09.2016

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 30.04.2012 of the CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 on various grounds.

2.

However, no one was present on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. The appeal was passed over twice. Even in the third round, the position remained the same as neither the assessee is represented nor there is any adjournment on record. The record shows that the notice sent to the assessee on 18.07.2016 at the address indicated in Column No.10, despite this the assessee remained unrepresented. It is further seen that the said notice has not come back unserved. The record further shows that the Registry has pointed out a delay of 622 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 appeals of the assessee in limine. Support I.T.A .No.-1783/Del/2014 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. The order is pronounced in the open court on 30th of September, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →