GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Absence of communication for non appearance can treat the appeal to be unadmitted

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which 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 un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963

Citation :
Amandeep Sandhu, Sherwood College, Mallital, Nainital. AOMPS2957N (Appellant) Vs. DCIT Nainital. (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

&

SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 4266/Del/2011

Assessment Year: 2006-07

Amandeep Sandhu,

Sherwood College, Mallital,

Nainital.

AOMPS2957N

(Appellant)

Vs.

DCIT

Nainital.

 (Respondent)

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Mrs. Anusha Khurana, Sr. DR

ORDER

PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 06.07.2011 for assessment year 2006-07.

2. The case was listed for hearing on 24/11/2011. But none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, fresh notice was issued through Registered AD post fixing the date on 21/03/2012. However, on the date of hearing, the case was adjourned to 17/07/2012 at the request of the assessee. Neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assesee on the date fixed nor any adjournment application was filed on behalf of the assessee. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, for non-prosecution, finding support from the following decisions:

1. “In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that:

 “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order:

“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.”

3. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which 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 un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.”

3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for nonprosecution.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.08.2012

                                                     Sd/-                            Sd/-

                                             (A.D. JAIN)          (S.V. MEHROTRA)

                                     JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 03/08/12

*Kavita

Copy forwarded to: -

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR, ITAT

TRUE COPY

By Order,

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

 

CS Bijoy
on 30 August 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1833
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags