M/S. INDERJEET CHAWLA & SONS (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6680/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2001-022 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 consistent absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal precedents, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were listed for hearing multiple times, but neither the assessee nor their counsel appeared. No adjournment application was received despite proper notice.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings. The importance of actively pursuing an appeal beyond mere filing.

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: 25.05.2016Pronounced: 27.05.2016

PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These appeals, by the assessee, are directed against separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), dated 01.10.2013 for assessment year 2001-02. 2. Earlier when the appeals came up for hearing on 11.09.2015, the case was adjourned on the request of assessee’s counsel. Again on 02.11.2015, on the request of assessee’s counsel, the case was adjourned for 25.01.2016, on which date, due to non-functioning of Bench, the case was fixed for 25.05.2016. On 25.05.2016, when the case was called upon, neither any one appeared, 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 its appeals.

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 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeals are 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 appeals for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeals filed, then he would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution. The decision is pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2016. (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27th May, 2016. RK/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →