SH. PRADEEP JAGDISH SAXENA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09. The notice for hearing was sent to the assessee, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for the hearing and no adjournment was sought.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee or their representative for the scheduled hearing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
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 listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
Date of Hearing: 07.04.2016 Date of Order : 07-04-2016 ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 15.1.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2008-09.
In this case the Notice was sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for today i.e. 07.04.2016 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10. 3. On 07.04.2016, neither the assessee nor his 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 his appeal. 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 this appeal 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.
In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07-04-2016.
SD/- SD/-
[PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER “SRBHATNAGAR”
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026