SHINKH TECHNOLOGIES LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8 (1),

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4245/DEL/2006Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 March 2016AY 2001-20025 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 appeal should be treated as un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing on 10.03.2016, despite sufficient notice. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The reasoning relied on Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, which allows for such dismissal. The Tribunal also cited decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, specifically Multiplan India Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Delhi)], and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], as precedents for dismissing appeals for non-prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Shonkh Technologies Ltd., filed appeals (ITA Nos. 4245/DEL/2006 & 1078/DEL/2009) against the order dated 19/10/2006 passed by the CIT(A) XI, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2001-02. The respondent is the DCIT, Circle 8(1), New Delhi. Despite advance notice of the hearing date (10.03.2016), neither the assessee nor their representative attended the hearing, nor was any request for adjournment received. The Tribunal inferred from this absence that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution, based on the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and relevant judicial precedents. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, as they were absent. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution implies an acceptance of the principle that non-appearance can lead to dismissal, supported by the authorities cited.

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: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SHRI LALIT KUMAR

Hearing: 10.03.2016Pronounced: 11.03.2016

These appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order dated 19/10/2006 passed by CIT(A) XI, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2001-02. Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, neither assessee attended nor any application for adjournment has been received. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal.

2.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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 case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed.

3.

In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 11th of March, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →