M/S RATNAGIRI IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 625/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 June 2015AY 2006-074 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 repeated non-appearances and failure to rectify defects. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT had defects that were not rectified. Despite receiving notices, the assessee or their representative did not appear for the hearings, and no proper Power of Attorney was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and rectify defects, and whether the Tribunal has the discretion to recall such an order.

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 P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Hearing: 02.06.2015Pronounced: 02.06.2015

Date of hearing : 02.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2015 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 10.1.2014 of the CIT(Appeals)-III, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2006-07.

2.

There were certain defects in the appeal filed by the assessee, which was brought to the assessee’s notice by the Registry by its communication dated 8.5.2014. The defect was not rectified by the assessee. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 2.2.2015. Notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. An application for adjournment was filed by one H.R. Suresh & Co., CAs. The CAs, however, did not file the Power of Attorney on behalf of the assessee. The case was adjourned to 2.6.2015. On 2.6.2015, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. A letter was, however, filed by one H.R. Suresh & Co., CAs, seeking adjournment. As already stated, the CAs who filed the application for adjournment has not filed any Power of Attorney from the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not serious in pursuing 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.

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 2nd day of June, 2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →