M/S. JACKSONS DEPARTMENTAL STORE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 509/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2016AY 2003-042 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 assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation and the appeal being time-barred. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. However, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during multiple hearings despite proper notice. The appeal was also found to be time-barred without any application for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal, and the appeal being time-barred.

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: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SH.L.P.SAHU

Hearing: 27.01.2016Pronounced: 09.02.2016

ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2012 of CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi pertaining to 2003-04 assessment year on various grounds.

2.

However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the third round also, the position remained the same. We find from the record that notice has been issued to the assessee on 10.12.2015 for the specific date of hearing. We further, find that on the last date of hearing i.e. 2nd November, 2015, no one was present on behalf of the assessee notice for which date have been issued on 14.10.2015. The record would show that consistently the notices have been sent to the address given by the assessee in column no. 10 in the memo of appeals filed. It is further seen that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred and no attempt has been made on behalf of the assessee by way of filing any condonation of delay Jacksons Departmental Store petition so as to explain the delay. In the circumstances it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, 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; and the assessee is in a position to address the delay then the assessee if so advised would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order and decision on merit. 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 09 of February, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →