Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

If notice given is not properly replied by the appellant than the appeal deserved to be dismissed

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed

Citation :
Chadha Finlease Ltd., D-851, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.(PAN/GIR No.AAACC5071C)(Appellant) Vs ACIT, Circle 3(1),New Delhi.(Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

(DELHI BENCH `B’: NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.3013/Del./2011

(Assessment Year: 2007-08)

Chadha Finlease Ltd.,

D-851, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony,

New Delhi.

(PAN/GIR No.AAACC5071C)

(Appellant)

Vs

ACIT, Circle 3(1),

New Delhi.

(Respondent)

Assessee by: None

Revenue by: Shri Rohit Garg, Sr.DR

ORDER

PER A.D. JAIN: JM

This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08 contending that the CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.12077814.00 as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted following the ratio of decisions rendered in the following cases:

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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P).) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.).

3. Respectfully following the above precedents, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. However, it is clarified that if assessee later on explains the reasons for non-appearance and the Bench is so satisfied, the order passed ex-parte may be recalled for fresh adjudication of the appeal.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.

5. Order pronounced in open court on the conclusion of the hearing on 20.12.2011.

                                    Sd/-                                                Sd/-

                          (A.N. PAHUJA)                            (A.D. JAIN)

               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER         JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated, Dec. 20, 2011

SKB

Copy forwarded to:

1.Appellant

2.Respondent

3.CIT

4.CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi

5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.

AR/ITAT

 

Shivani
on 06 January 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1186
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags