SH. BALJEET SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2975/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 March 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, noting the consistent absence of the assessee and the lack of any representation or request for time, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. Despite multiple adjournments and notices, the assessee failed to appear before the tribunal. The revenue's application for adjournment was rejected.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's non-appearance before the tribunal and whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to lack of prosecution.

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: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 14.03.2016Pronounced: 28.03.2016

Date of Hearing 14.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2016 ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 25.02.2014 of CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

On behalf of the revenue there is an adjournment stating that the Sr. DR is on leave. Since no one was present at the time of hearing on behalf of the assessee, the appeal was passed over twice. Even in the third round the position remained the same. A perusal of the record shows that the appeal first came up for hearing on 21/09/2015 on which date it was adjourned as none was present on behalf of the assessee. Next it came up for hearing on 22/09/2015 on which date it was adjourned on the request of the assessee to 23/11/2015. On the said date again no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly another opportunity was given and notice was directed to be sent by RPAD. The record shows that notice was issued to the assessee on 26/11/2015 and it was sent to the address given by the assessee in Column No. 10 in the memo of appeal. Despite this the assessee has still not chosen to put in any presence. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the departmental application was rejected and in the absence of any representation I.T.A .No.-2975/Del/2014 or petition seeking time moved on behalf of the assessee, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P).

3.

Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 28th of March, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →