SHRI PUNEET JAIN,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4152/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 November 2015AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the appeal as not admitted, citing the assessee's non-appearance and failure to rectify defects. This decision was based on the principle that an appeal can be treated as unadmitted if the appellant remains absent without communication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. The notice sent to the assessee was returned with remarks of an incorrect address, and a defect memo regarding short payment of tribunal fees was not rectified.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant and failure to rectify defects. The applicability of the principle of treating an appeal as unadmitted in such circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

Pronounced: 04.11.2015

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A), Meerut, dated 14.5.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice by RPAD. The notice sent by registered post has been returned by the Postal Authorities with the remarks ‘No person by this name at this address. So, returned for the correct address.’ The defect memo issued to the assessee that Tribunal fee is paid short by Rs.3,768/- has not been rectified. Thus, I dismiss this appeal as not admitted by applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.)

Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 04.11.2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →