M/S. GMS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2652/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 November 2015AY 2004-052 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, considering the assessee's non-appearance and lack of communication, inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. On the final hearing date, neither the assessee nor their authorized representative appeared, and no adjournment application was filed. The assessee also did not provide a fresh address for correspondence.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules

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: 04.11.201 Date of Hearing: .2015 Date of Hearing: Date of Hearing: .201 .201 .2015 Date of Order : Date of Order : 04.11.201 Date of Order : Date of Order : .201 .201 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER Th This Th Th is is appeal is appeal appeal by the Assessee appeal by the Assessee by the Assessee is by the Assessee is is directed against is directed against directed against the directed against the the Order dated the rder dated rder dated rder dated 18 18.2.20 18 18 20 2015 20 passed passed passed passed by by by by the the the the Ld. Ld. Ld. Ld. Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner of of of of Income Income Income Income Tax Tax Tax Tax (Appeals) (Appeals)-4, New Delhi (Appeals) (Appeals) , New Delhi , New Delhi for the asstt. year , New Delhi for the asstt. year for the asstt. year 20 for the asstt. year 20 2004-05 20 05 05. . . . 05 2. 2. 2.

2.

The present case was earlier fixed for The present case was earlier fixed for 31 The present case was earlier fixed for The present case was earlier fixed for 31 31.7.2015 31 .2015 .2015 and then .2015 and then and then and then adjourned to 19.8.2015. On 19.8.2015 due to non adjourned to 19.8.2015. On 19.8.2015 due to non-functioning of the adjourned to 19.8.2015. On 19.8.2015 due to non adjourned to 19.8.2015. On 19.8.2015 due to non functioning of the functioning of the functioning of the Bench, the case was adjourned for 4.11.2015. On 4.11.2015, Bench, the case was adjourned for 4.11.2015. On 4.11.2015, neither the Bench, the case was adjourned for 4.11.2015. On 4.11.2015, Bench, the case was adjourned for 4.11.2015. On 4.11.2015, neither the neither the neither the assessee nor h assessee nor his assessee nor h assessee nor h is is authorised representat is authorised representat authorised representative appeared before the Bench authorised representat ve appeared before the Bench ve appeared before the Bench ve appeared before the Bench and also no adjournment application was filed and also no adjournment application was filed. . . . I I I I have perused the have perused the and and also no adjournment application was filed also no adjournment application was filed have perused the have perused the records and found that the Assessee has not given any fresh address for records and found that the Assessee has not given any fresh address for records and found that the Assessee has not given any fresh address for records and found that the Assessee has not given any fresh address for correspondence. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be correspondence. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be correspondence. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be correspondence. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to issue not served to issue notice again and again on the same address. served to issue not served to issue not ice again and again on the same address. ice again and again on the same address. It is thus ice again and again on the same address. It is thus It is thus It is thus inferred that the inferred that the assessee assessee is is not interested in not interested in prosecution of rosecution of its its appeal. appeal. inferred that inferred that the the assessee assessee is is not interested in not interested in rosecution of rosecution of its its 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 o f Multiplan India decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that o decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that o f Multiplan India f Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh 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 th treat this treat th is is appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. is appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to 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 Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled appearance and if the 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 limin is dismissed in limin dismissed in limine. dismissed in limin e. e. e. 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 →