9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1714 - AT - Income TaxNon prosecution of appeal - HELD THAT - The appeal of the assessee was posted for hearing on 05.12.2017 by service of notice RPAD on record . None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. Further the assessee has not rectified the defects notified in the Defect Memo that Appeal fees to be paid under sub-head Others . Hence it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D and case of late Tukojirao Holkar 1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Issues: Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the assessee, failure to rectify defects, and non-payment of appeal fees.
Issue 1: Non-appearance of the assessee and failure to rectify defects The appeal filed by the assessee was scheduled for a hearing, but on the designated date, neither the assessee nor any representative appeared, and no adjournment petition was submitted. Additionally, the defects highlighted in the Defect Memo, specifically regarding the payment of appeal fees under the sub-head "Others," were not rectified. This lack of action by the assessee indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Issue 2: Dismissal of the appeal Considering the circumstances and in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, the Tribunal referred to precedents, including the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. and the judgment of the Honorable Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar. Citing these references, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution due to the non-appearance, failure to rectify defects, and the lack of interest demonstrated by the assessee in pursuing the case. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-appearance, failure to rectify defects, and the absence of payment of appeal fees. The decision was made following the provisions of Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and in line with established legal precedents. The judgment was pronounced on December 27, 2017, in Chennai.
|
