| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 3456 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254(1)
When appeals were called for hearing and neither anybody appeared on behalf of assessee nor adjournment application was filed, then it appears that assessee was not interested in prosecuting these appeals and accordingly, these appeals were dismissed.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Maintainability - Assessee neither appeared nor filed application for adjournment - Non-prosecution of appeal
Issue arose for consideration was, whether appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when appeals were called for hearing but neither anybody appeared on behalf of assessee nor adjournment application was filed.Held: When appeals were called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of assessee nor adjournment application was filed inspite the fact that proper notice of hearing had already been sent to assessee. Therefore, it appeared that assessee was not interested in prosecuting these appeals. As such these appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the assessee was at liberty to move application under section 254 in case he so desires.
Followed:CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1420 (Del-Trib),Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP): 1997 TaxPub(DT) 0244 (MP-HC),New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H): 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0100 (P&H-HC) and CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr. (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) : 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1026 (SC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. : 2006-07 to 2010-11
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|