SH. RISHI ANAND,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, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee and their representative failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and did not request an adjournment.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee for the 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: 05.04.2016 Date of Order : 05-04-2016 ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM
This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 24.12.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2009-10.
In this case the Notice was sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for today i.e. 05.04.2016 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10. 3. On 05.04.2016, 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 1 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 05-04-2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026