M/S. LAKHANI RUBBER UDYOG PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1795/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting its appeals due to non-appearance. Following established rules and decisions, the Tribunal treated the appeals as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Notices were sent to the assessee for the hearing, but neither the assessee nor its representative attended.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance before the Tribunal for the hearing of its appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules

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 “D”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI J.S. REDDY

Hearing: 10.05.2016

Date of Hearing: 10.05.2016 Date of Order : 10-05-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM These appeals are filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate Orders both dated 16.1.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Faridabad relevant to assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10.

2.

In these cases the Notice were sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for today i.e. 10.05.2016 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10.

3.

On 10.05.2016, neither the assessee nor its authorised representative attended the hearing and also not filed any application for adjournment. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeals.

4.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs.

CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We may like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal.

5.

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.

6.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10-05-2016.

Sd/- Sd/-

[J.S. REDDY] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “SRBHATNAGAR”

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →