Dheer Chand Sharma, New Delhi vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A .No.-868/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal in limine for a defect that the assessee has failed to cure over an extended period, where the assessee has repeatedly sought time without curing it and the circumstances demonstrate that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal; in such a case the dismissal is without prejudice, and the assessee may seek recall of the order by curing the defect and offering a satisfactory explanation, which the Bench may accept or reject in its discretion.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
By the present appeal, the assessee assails the correctness of the order dated 24.12.2012 of CIT(A), Ghaziabad pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year.
2. However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment petition was moved both by the assessee and the department requesting for time. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. appearing on behalf of the assessee requested for time to cure the defect pointed by Registry. A perusal of the record shows that the defect was pointed out by the Registry on 5/4/2013. Till date it remains uncured. The record shows that the appeal came up for hearing on 13.08.2013 on which date, time was sought on behalf of the assessee which was granted. In these peculiar facts and circumstances the assessee's and the department's petition seeking time was rejected by dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal is defective. The fact that till date over the years defect remains uncured demonstrates that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. However, while rejecting the petition seeking time it was I.T.A .No.-868/Del/2013
informed to the Ld. AR that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed then it must first take steps to cure the defect. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the assessee for praying for a recall of this order as and when the assessee takes appropriate steps to cure that the defect pointed out by the Registry. The Bench so considering the request, if made, may recall the order on being satisfied by the explanation offered . The said order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the parties
3. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in lilmine. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15th of May 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 15/05/2015 *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 3 I.T.A .No.-868/Del/2013
Date 1. Draft dictated on 07.05.2015 PS 2. Draft placed before author 07.05.2015 PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM/AM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the .05.2015 PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk .05.2015 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.
Page 3 of 3
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