M/S. SONA OVERSEAS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3008/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 November 2015AY 2008-093 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, citing Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and previous decisions, held that the appeal was unadmitted due to the assessee's non-prosecution. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was repeatedly adjourned due to non-appearance and lack of updated contact information. On the final hearing date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, and no adjournment application was filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed in limine due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance and failure to prosecute the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2)

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 “SMC-2”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Respondent: Ms. Garima Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.11.201

Date of Hearing: Date of Hearing: 04.11.201 Date of Hearing: Date of Hearing: .201 .2015 .201 .2015 Date of Order : Date of Order : 04.11.201 Date of Order : Date of Order : .201 .201 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER This Th is appeal appeal by the Assessee by the Assessee is is directed against directed against the the Order dated rder dated Th Th is is appeal appeal by the Assessee by the Assessee is is directed against directed against the the rder dated rder dated 14.3.20 14 2014 passed passed by by the the Ld. Ld. Commissioner Commissioner of of Income Income Tax Tax 14 14 20 20 passed passed by by the the Ld. Ld. Commissioner Commissioner of of Income Income Tax Tax (Appeals)-19 (Appeals) 19, New Delhi , New Delhi for the asstt. year for the asstt. year 20 2008-09. . . . (Appeals) (Appeals) 19 19 , New Delhi , New Delhi for the asstt. year for the asstt. year 20 20 2.

2. The present case was earlier fixed for 12 The present case was earlier fixed for 12.6.2015 .2015 and adjourned to and adjourned to 2.

2.

The present case was earlier fixed for The present case was earlier fixed for 12 12 .2015 .2015 and adjourned to and adjourned to 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s 02.7.2015. On 2.7.2015 on the written request of the assessee’s counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the counsel, the case was adjourned 28.7.2015. On 28.7.2015, again on the written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned written request of the assessee’s counsel the case was further adjourned for 19.8.2015, but on 19. for 19.8.2015, but on 19.8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the for 19.8.2015, but on 19. for 19.8.2015, but on 19. 8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the 8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the 8.2015 the Bench was not functioning and the case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing RPAD Notice to both the parties. case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing case adjourned for 4.11.2015 by issuing RPAD Notice to both the parties. RPAD Notice to both the parties. RPAD Notice to both the parties. On 4.11.2015, On 4.11.2015, neither the On 4.11.2015, On 4.11.2015, neither the neither the assessee nor neither the assessee nor assessee nor its assessee nor its its authorised representative its authorised representative authorised representative authorised representative appeared before the Bench and appeared before the Bench and also no adjournment application was appeared before the Bench and appeared before the Bench and also no adjournment application was also no adjournment application was also no adjournment application was fifififiled led led. . . . I I I I have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not led have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the same address. same address. It is thus inferred that same address. same address. It is thus inferred that It is thus inferred that the It is thus inferred that the the assessee the ssessee ssessee is ssessee is is not interested in is not interested in not interested in not interested in prosecution of rosecution of rosecution of its rosecution of its its appeal. its appeal. appeal. appeal.

3.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s High Court’s High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I I I I treat th treat this is appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to I would like to treat th treat th is is appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled appearance and if the appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal.

4.

As a result, As a result, the A As a result, As a result, the A the Appeal of the assessee the A ppeal of the assessee ppeal of the assessee is ppeal of the assessee is is dismissed in limine. is dismissed in limine. dismissed in limine. dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court on Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04.11.2015 Order pronounced in the Open Court on Order pronounced in the Open Court on .2015 .2015. . . . .2015

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →