TARUN JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3475/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2015AY 2005-063 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 noted that no one appeared on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment application was filed. The notice of hearing was duly served. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The appeal was listed for hearing on 28.09.2015.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and lack of communication.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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 R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 28.09.2015Pronounced: 28.09.2015

(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 28.09.2015 ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 12.2.2014 in relation to the Assessment Year 2005-06.

2.

When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment application also. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee to the addressee given at column No.10 of Form 36 has not been returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:-

1. 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3. 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →