Sumbhav Buildcon (P) Ltd, vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.4805/Del/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reasoned that where the assessee neither appears nor seeks adjournment, after repeated prior non-appearances and adjournments in the appeal, the Tribunal may presume the assessee is not serious in prosecuting the appeal and may dismiss it in limine, rather than deciding it on merits. A dismissal for non-prosecution is without prejudice to the assessee's right to seek 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
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 01.10.2007 of CIT(A)-X, New Delhi pertaining to 2001-02 assessment year.
2. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee. In view thereof the appeal was passed over. Despite the same even in the second round the position remained the same as neither the assessee was present/represented nor any request for adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The record shows that the notice has been issued to the assessee on 16.02.2015. It is further seen from the record that the assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-representation on 03.03.2009 and subsequently was recalled ITA No. 4805/Del/2007
vide order dated 31.07.2009 vide MA No.333/Del/2009. Thereafter on 13.12.2010 the hearing did not take place as it was pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the MA is pending. On subsequent date i.e 04.04.2011, 06.07.2011, 01.09.2011 & 08.12.2011, the appeal was duly adjourned on the request of the assessee. Thereafter the appeal again came up for hearing on which dates due to non functioning of the Bench, the hearing did not take place. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances, neither the assessee is present nor any request for adjournment, we can safely presume 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 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 said order was pronounced in the Open Court on 25th March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: the 25th March, 2015 *Amit Kumar*
2 ITA No. 4805/Del/2007
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI
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