CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Assessee’s appeal liable to be dismissed as per provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 15/03/2010 for Assessment Year 2006-07.

Citation :
ITA 2550/DEL/2010

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
[ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ]

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
A N D
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)

ITA. Nos. 2550/Del/2010
(Assessment Year : 2006-07) 

Shri Noren Mandal, Prop. M/s.
Pee Pee Mandal Construction,
D–2/16-17, Sector : 11,
Rohini, Delhi – 110 085.
PAN: ACAPM4314R
( Appellant ) 

Vs.

DCIT,
Circle : 39 (1)
New Delhi.
( Respondent )

Assessee by : N O N E;
Revenue by: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R.C ;

Date of Hearing 26/03/2021
Date of pronouncement 26/03/2021

O R D E R

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M.

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 15/03/2010 for Assessment Year 2006-07.

2. During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee,nor any application for adjournment was filed. Notice of hearing for15.06.2017 was sent to the assessee by Post on 28.04.2017 at the addressmentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10 which has been returnedback by the postal authority with the remark “Left”. It is, thus, inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeal, therefore, in ourconsidered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address.

3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were consideredin the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

4. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:

"if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear atthe hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books soas to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. " 

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 19 April 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 30
downloaded 19 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags