Paramount Public School Educational ... vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A .No.-5712/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution where the assessee, though duly served with notice at the address given in the memorandum of appeal, is absent on three successive listings without any adjournment request or representation, and the Tribunal may thereby presume the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal; such a dismissal is without prejudice to the assessee's right to seek recall of the order and a hearing on merits 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
Paramount Public School Educational Society, vs CIT, 698/10, Shora Kothi, Rohtak (Haryana). Rohtak. PAN-AABAP1789K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh.Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing:-02.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement:-02.03.2015
ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) dated 26.09.2013 of CIT(A), Rohtak.
2. However, at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Request was moved on behalf of the department stating that the CIT DR is on leave which was rejected and the appeal was passed over. The position remained the same in the third round also. As neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment had been placed before the Bench. The record shows that notice has been sent to the assessee on 19.02.2015 at the address indicated in Column No.-10 in the memo of appeal provided by the assessee. In the absence of any petition seeking time and representation on the part of the assessee, in the aforementioned peculiar facts and circumstances it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in 2 I.T.A .No.-5712/Del/2013
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. 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 02nd of March 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated:02 /03/2015 *Amit Kumar*
Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
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