Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Deepak Dhar Gupta, New Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal5 June 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A tribunal may dismiss an appeal in limine where the appellant, having been served with notice of hearing, remains unrepresented on two occasions and makes no effort to explain the non-appearance, the non-representation being taken as indicating that the appellant is not serious in pursuing the appeal. The dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant's right to apply for recall of the order upon showing reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI BENCH: 'B' NEW DELHIBEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERANDSH. T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERI.T.A .No.-3774/Del/2013(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10)Sh. Deepak Dhar Gupta, vs ITO,B-1, Extn/A-41, Ward-22(2),Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi.New Delhi-110044.PAN-ACNPG1164(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)Appellant by NoneRespondent by Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Sr. DRDate of Hearing 04.06.2015Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2015ORDERPER DIVA SINGH, JM

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 26.04.2013 of CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year.

2. However, at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal accordingly was passed over. In the second round also, the position remained the same. The record shows that notice for the specific date of hearing has been sent to the assessee on 23.05.2015. A perusal of the record shows that the appeal last came up for hearing on 12.05.2014 on which date, none was present on behalf of the assessee and notice was issued to the assessee through RPAD. However, on the subsequent dates when the appeal was listed for hearing, the Bench was not functional. Considering the fact that on the two occasions when the appeal came up for hearing, the assessee has remained unrepresented despite issuance of notice nor any efforts appear to have been made to inform the Bench why the assessee is not represented. Accordingly in the absence of repeated non-

I.T.A .No.-3774/Del/2013

representation or petition seeking time, it can be presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn 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).

3. Before parting it is appropriate 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. Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold the appeal to be unadmitted with the liberty to assessee to move appropriate application and correct the defect whatsoever in the memo about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the appeal. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

4. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 05th of June 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 05/06/2015 *Amit Kumar*

Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 2 of 2

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