This article delves into the case of ITA No. 298/DEL/2019, where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, underlining the critical nature of compliance and representation in tax appeals.
The case involves Girdhar Bajaj, the appellant, against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was the confirmation of a significant addition to the appellant’s income, which he contested but failed to substantiate due to his absence from multiple hearings.
The appeal was repeatedly set for hearing, with notices duly sent to the appellant. However, despite several scheduled dates and notices sent via speed post, the appellant failed to appear, leading to a dismissal for want of prosecution as per prevailing legal precedents.
The tribunal, referencing the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya and the Delhi Tribunal’s decision in CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., concluded that non-appearance by the appellant justified dismissal of the appeal. The decision reflects the judiciary’s stance on the importance of procedural compliance in maintaining the efficacy of judicial processes.
The dismissal of Girdhar Bajaj’s appeal serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of disregarding procedural requirements in judicial proceedings. It underscores the importance of participation and representation in legal appeals and the potential repercussions of non-compliance.
Dismissal for Non-Prosecution in Girdhar Bajaj vs ITO, New Delhi (ITA 298/DEL/2019)
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform