IDEAL LAMINATES PVT. LTD.,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4790/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 November 2015AY 2005-064 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 rejected the adjournment application due to the absence of a power of attorney. It was presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's counsel sought an adjournment, but no power of attorney was on record. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and their counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or provide necessary documentation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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: SHRI P.K. BANSAL :

For Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna Sr. DR
Hearing: 12/11/2015

Date of hearing : 12/11/2015. Date of order : 12/11/2015. O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 5-6- 2015, passed by the CIT(A), Meerut, in appeal no. 30/13/14, relating to A.Y. 2005-06.

2.

None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. An application dated 9-11-2015, for adjournment of hearing, on the ground of non availability of assessee’s counsel on the date of hearing i.e. 12-11-2015, is available on record.

3.

After going through the appeal record, I find that no power of attorney to argue the appeal on behalf of the assessee is available on record. It is also not known as to who and under what authority has signed the application for adjournment of the hearing. Therefore, in absence of any power of attorney on record, the impugned application for adjournment is rejected. In these circumstances it is presumed that the assessee has remained absent on the date of hearing before the ITAT, deliberately, without any sufficient cause. It also gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. Considering the facts of the case 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), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.

The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) 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. " 5. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.

Bhattachargee & 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.

7.

Respectfully following the View taken in the cases cited supra, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 12/11/2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →