SHRI GURJEET SINGH CHADHA,MORADABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 677/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 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 held that the assessee's failure to appear or seek adjournment indicates a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) order for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. On the date of hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the Tribunal, and no adjournment request was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear on the date of hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 “C”: NEW DELHI

Before: I.C.SUDHIR & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 10/05/2016Pronounced: 11/05/2016

Assessee by : None Respondent by: Sh. Ravinder Mani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/05/2016 Date of pronouncement 11/05/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A)-30, 1. New Delhi for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Today, i.e. on 10.05.2016 when the cases were called on board, none 2. appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed before the Tribunal. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →