GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Absence of interest for prosecution may cause for dismissal

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2012 at the request of the assessee’s counsel. Again on 01.11.2012, there was a written request of the assessee’s counsel praying for adjournment and thus, the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2013. However, at the time of hearing today i.e. 21.03.2012, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there was any request for adjournment. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine

Citation :
Smt.Aruna Rani, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, C/o K.L.Aneja, Advocate, Flat No.92C, Block-B, Pkt-W, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088. (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aykar Bhawan, HUDA,Panipat. (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.4198/Del/2011

Assessment Year: 2000-01

Smt.Aruna Rani,

W/o Shri Anil Kumar,

C/o K.L.Aneja, Advocate,

Flat No.92C, Block-B,

Pkt-W, Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi – 110 088.

(Appellant)

Vs.

Income Tax Officer,

Ward-3,

Aykar Bhawan, HUDA,

Panipat.

 (Respondent)

Appellant by: None.

Respondent by: Shri A.K.Mishra, CIT-DR.

ORDER

PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Karnal dated 2nd August, 2011 for the AY 2000-01.\

2. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2012

at the request of the assessee’s counsel. Again on 01.11.2012, there was a written request of the assessee’s counsel praying for adjournment and thus, the matter was adjourned to 21.03.2013. However, at the time of hearing today i.e. 21.03.2012, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor there was any request for adjournment. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine.

3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Decision pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on 21st March, 2013.

Sd/- Sd/-

(I.C.SUDHIR) (G.D.AGRAWAL)

JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Dated: 21.03.2013

VK.

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Appellant: Smt.Aruna Rani, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, C/o K.L.Aneja, Advocate, Flat No.92C, Block-B, Pkt-W, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi – 110 088.

2. Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Aykar Bhawan, HUDA, Panipat.

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR, ITAT

Assistant Registrar

 

CS Bijoy
on 02 May 2013
Published in Income Tax
Views : 778
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags