M/S. U-LIKE PROMOTERS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1569/DEL/2009Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2015AY 1998-19993 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, following precedents, treated the appeals as un-admitted and dismissed them. This dismissal was due to the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were listed for hearing multiple times, and on the scheduled date, neither the assessee nor their counsel appeared. The Revenue was represented. The Tribunal noted the repeated adjournments and the absence of the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to prosecute them.

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 `H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI L.P. SAHU

For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR
Hearing: 05.10.2015

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A.No.1569/Del/2009
I.T.A. 1377/Del/2012
ITA No. 1379/Del/2012

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

These appeals by the assessee have been preferred against the order of CIT(A), New Delhi dated 5.2.2009 in Appeal No. 92/07-08 for AY 1998-99.

2.

These appeals were initially fixed for hearing on 29.3.2012 and since then adjournments have been sought by the counsel for the assessee. Thereafter, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 5.10.2015 and both parties were informed. Today on 5.10.2015, no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was placed before the Bench. Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue at the time of hearing.

3.

It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeals prosecuted. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, made the following observations:-

“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.”

ITAT Delhi Bench ‘D’ in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 4.

38 ITD 320 observed that the provisions of Rule 19 state that mere issue of notice could not by itself mean that the appeal had been admitted. This rule only clarifies the position. There might be various reasons with the appellant to remain absent at the time of hearing. One of the reasons might also be a desire or absence of need to prosecute the appeal or liability to assist the Tribunal in a proper manner or to take benefit of vagaries of law.

5.

Respectfully following the precedents, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as un-admitted and dismissed in limine. We may like to clarify that subsequently, if the assessee explains the reasons for non-appearance and if the to 1572/D/2009 ITA 1377 to 1379/D/2012 Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →