Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment
From the Courts »
 Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 & Others
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Order of a Four-Member Appellate Authority constituted under Chartered Accountants Act is Valid: Delhi HC
 Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court)
 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-op Society Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)

Smt. Ramo, W/o (Late) Dharam Singh, C/o Shri V.K. Goel, Advocates, 282, Boundry Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Meerut.
May, 06th 2015
                DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI


                       ITA No.5418/Del/2014
                     Assessment Year : 2004-05

Smt. Ramo,                        Vs.         ITO,
W/o (Late) Dharam Singh,                      Ward 2(2),
C/o Shri V.K. Goel, Advocates,                Meerut.
282, Boundry Road,
Civil Lines,


     (Appellant)                           (Respondent)

            Appellant by :       None
            Respondent by:       Shri J.P. Chandraker, Sr.DR



     This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

passed by the CIT(A), Meerut on 27.08.2014 in relation to

Assessment Year 2004-05.

2.   This is a case in which early hearing was granted for today, i.e.,

5.5.2015, at the request of the assessee. When the matter was

called up for hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the

assessee.    Notice of hearing sent to the assessee has not been
                                                        ITA No.5418/Del/2014   2

returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the

assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. The appeal

filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-

prosecution.   Our above view finds support from the following


    1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr.', 118 ITR 461, wherein their
       Lordships have held:
          "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but
          effectively pursuing it."

    2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT', 223 ITR 480 (M.P.),
       wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance
       of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following
          "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. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd', 38
       ITD 320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before
       the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing.     But on the date of
       hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any
       communication for adjournment was received. There was no
       communication or information as to why the revenue chose to
       remain absent on that date.     The Tribunal on the basis of
       inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as
       unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the
       Appellate Rules, 1963.
                                                         ITA No.5418/Del/2014   3

3.     In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for


      The decision was pronounced in the open court on 05th May,


           Sd/-                                        Sd/-
       (H.S. SIDHU)                              (R.S. SYAL)
     JUDICIAL MEMBER                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated:5th May, 2015.


Copy forwarded to

1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(A)
5.   DR
                                        Dy. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Customer relationship management software CRM software Operational CRM Collaborative CRM

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions