Akshat Gupta, Uttar Pradesh vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 770/Del/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal in limine, ex parte the assessee, where the assessee has not removed the defects notified to it and neither appears nor seeks an adjournment on the date fixed for hearing, the inference being that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Dismissal of the appeal in limine on that ground does not preclude the assessee from applying for recall of the order upon showing reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, whereupon the defects may be removed and a decision on merits sought.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shri Akshat Gupta, S/O Commissioner of Shri Anil Kumar, Mohalla, Katra, Income Tax Dhanaura, Distt, J. P. Nagar vs (Appeals), Bareilly (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Robin Rawal, JCIT
Date of Hearing 22.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement .06.2015
ORDER PER S. V. MEHROTRA, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 10th February 2014, against the order of the CIT (A) dated 21/12/2008 pertaining to 2002-03 assessment year.
2. A defect notice was issued by the office to the assessee on 25th August 2014 pointing out as under:-
(a) Respondent is not correctly shown in the appeal for
(b) Form NO. 35/Grounds of appeal/statement of the facts before the CIT(Appeals) not filing. (The assessee has not removed the defects so far.) fixing the appeal for hearing today. Notice was sent at the address given in Form 36.
However, at the time of hearing neither any adjournment application was filed by the assessee nor anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, it is 2 ITA No. 770/Del/2014
inferred that assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine ex-parte qua assessee-appellant following the decision the case of 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, who made expired and no steps were takne to bring the legal representatives on record, 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. I 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 after removal of the defects etc. request for a decision on merits.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 22 of June 2015.
Sd/-
(S. V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:- 22/06/2013
*R. Naheed*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 3 ITA No. 770/Del/2014
Date
1. Draft dictated on 22.06.2015 PS
2. Draft placed before author .06.2015 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM second member
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member.
5. Approved Draft comes to the .06.2015 PS/PS Sr.PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk .06.2015 PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free