ITAT may dismiss appeal for non attendance by the Assessee

M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)-  The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was called for hearing on this date, neither anybody attended nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). It is held accordingly. 

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI 

ITA No. 5532(Del)/2010 – Assessment year: 2007-08

M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd.,

Vs

Income-tax Officer

Date of pronouncement: 13.12.2011.

ORDER

PER K.G. BANSAL : AM

In this appeal the assessee has taken up six grounds as under:-

1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in passing ex-parte order on mechanical basis without proper opportunity, application of mind and in total disregard to provisions of section 250(6).

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 2,75,000/- on account of purchases without recording any specific finding.

3. That the claim of purchase is fully supported and verifiable and there is no valid basis for addition of Rs. 2,75,000/-.

4. That the lower authorities were also not justified in allowing 50% claim of expenses on general and arbitrary basis.

5. That purchases and claim of expenses being on the basis of audited books of accounts, there is no case of any presumption or adverse inference relating to correctness and genuineness of claim.

6. That the orders of the lower authorities are not justified on facts and same are bad in law.”

2. The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum- notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was called for hearing on this date, neither anybody attended nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). It is held accordingly.

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Related posts:

1. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the assessee’s appeal without adjudicating upon the question as to whether the law to s 248, as amended with effect from 1 June 2007, was applicable or not
2. Tribunal may treat Appeal as un-admitted for non attendance with a right to appellant to make application for recall of order
3. Can tribunal dismiss appeal for non persecution
4. Tribunal has inherent power to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance of appellant
5. CESTAT cannot dismiss an appeal when a writ application thereto is pending before a high court