Case Law Details

Case Name : Chadha Finlease Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 3013/Del./2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/11/2011
Related Assessment Year : 2007- 08
Courts : All ITAT (5324) ITAT Delhi (1212)

Chadha Finlease Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) –  At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted.

ORDER

PER A.D. JAIN: JM

This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08 contending that the CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of  Rs. 12077814.00 as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no.36. The same has not returned unserved. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed as unadmitted following the ratio of decisions rendered in the following cases:

1. In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478], wherein their Lordships have held that:-

“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”

2. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order:-

“If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”

3. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P).) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.).

3. Respectfully following the above precedents, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. However, it is clarified that if assessee later on explains the reasons for non-appearance and the Bench is so satisfied, the order passed ex-parte may be recalled for fresh adjudication of the appeal.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.

5. Order pronounced in open court on the conclusion of the hearing on 20.12.2011.

GST Course Join
Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (27916)
Type : Judiciary (12100)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (5506)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts