SH. VISHESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1597/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2011-122 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, relying on established legal precedents, held that an appeal is not merely the filing of a memo but requires effective prosecution. Since the assessee was absent and did not pursue the appeal, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on multiple hearing dates. Despite notices being sent to the provided address, no representation or adjournment request was received. This indicated a lack of interest from the assessee in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and pursue the matter before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: ‘D’: NEW DELHI

Before: SH. H.S. SIDHU & SH. O.P. KANT

Hearing: 24.05.2016Pronounced: 25.05.2016

PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), dated 12.12.2013 passed for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Earlier on 25.02.2016, when the case was called upon, neither anyone responded on behalf of the assessee and the case was adjourned for 24.05.2016. Again on 24.05.2016, neither any one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application for adjournment has been received on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice for hearing through RPAD at the address furnished by the assessee in column 10 of the memo of appeal in form no.

36.

It gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal.

3.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were 2 AY: 2011-12 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

3.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "

4.

Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New

5.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

6.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then he would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 25th May, 2016. (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25th May, 2016. RK/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →