M/S INSILICA SEMI CONDUCTORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ITO,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1117/BANG/2013Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2015AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established precedents regarding non-prosecution of appeals, decided to dismiss the appeal. However, it granted the assessee an opportunity to apply for recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance could be shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee had also been served with a defect notice earlier. This indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)
Hearing: 29.09.2015Pronounced: 30.09.2015

O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 7.9.2012 of the CIT(Appeals)-IV, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2007-08.

IT(TP)A No.1117/Bang/2013 Page 2 of 3

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing today nor any application filed. The acknowledgement- cum-notice notifying the hearing date has been served on the assessee at the time of filing of appeal. Further, a defect notice dated 25.5.2015 has also been served on the assessee (AD card placed on record). The above conduct on the part of the assessee shows that it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

3.

Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del) we treat this appeal as unadmitted. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been 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.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. 4.

Bhattacharjee & 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.

IT(TP)A No.1117/Bang/2013 Page 3 of 3

5.

Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. However, if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal for such non- appearance on the appointed date, the Tribunal, at its discretion, may recall this order.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of September, 2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →