Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Absence without application for adjournment can treat the appeal dismisses

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Despite the same, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The record shows that on an earlier date i.e 06.07.2012, the appeal was adjourned at the request of the assessee. Similarly on 07.02.2011 also it was adjourned on assessee’s request. Notice for the date of hearing itself has been sent to the assessee on 13.01.2013 at the address given by the assessee in Column No- 10. In these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals in limine. We find support from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). In the said case while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default the Hon’ble Court made following observations in their order.”

Citation :
Sudha Diwan, D-972, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. PAN-ADRPD6213A (APPELLANT) Vs ACIT, Circle-22(1),New Delhi. (RESPONDENT)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A .No.-5451/Del/2010

(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04)

Sudha Diwan,

D-972, New Friends Colony,

New Delhi.

PAN-ADRPD6213A

(APPELLANT)

Vs

ACIT,

Circle-22(1),

New Delhi.

 (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Ms. Y.S.Kakkar, Sr. DR

ORDER

PER DIVA SINGH, JM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.09.2010 of CIT (A)-XXV, New Delhi pertaining to 2007-08 assessment year.

2. However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Despite the same, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The record shows that on an earlier date i.e 06.07.2012, the appeal was adjourned at the request of the assessee. Similarly on 07.02.2011 also it was adjourned on assessee’s request. Notice for the date of hearing itself has been sent to the assessee on 13.01.2013 at the address given by the assessee in Column No- 10. In these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals in limine. We find support from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). In the said case while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default the Hon’ble Court made following observations 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. We hasten to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing then it may if so advised pray for a recall of this order and decisions on merits.

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

The order is pronounced in the open court on 20th of March 2013.

Sd/- Sd/-

(B.C.MEENA) (DIVA SINGH)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 20/03/2013

*Amit Kumar*

Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT (Appeals)

5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT NEW DELHI

 

CS Bijoy
on 10 May 2013
Published in Income Tax
Views : 3944
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags