Ajay Goel, New Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal28 July 2015

CitationITA No.777/Del/2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution where, on the date fixed for hearing, neither the assessee nor any representative appears, no adjournment application has been filed, and the matter had earlier been adjourned with a fresh notice of hearing issued; in such circumstances the assessee is taken to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground. An appeal is not discharged merely by filing it; it requires the appellant to effectively pursue it, and a failure to pursue it on the date of hearing justifies its dismissal for non-prosecution.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No.777/Del/2014Assessment Year : 2007-08Ajay Goel, Vs. ITO,C-54, Vivek Vihar, Ward-35(1),New Delhi. New Delhi.PAN : AADPG3182A(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : NoneRespondent by: Shri Om Prakash Meena, Sr.DRORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the

CIT(A) on 22.11.2013 in relation to Assessment Year 2007-08.

2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared

on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment

application also. Earlier, on 22.6.2015, when the matter was first posted for

hearing, the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2015 and a fresh notice of

hearing was sent to the assessee. In these circumstances, it appears that the ITA No.777/Del/2014 2

assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. The appeal filed by the

assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our

above view finds support from the following decisions:-

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 observation:-

"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 Tribunal Rules, 1963.

ITA No.777/Del/2014 3 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 28th July, 2015.

Sd/-

(R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 28th July, 2015.

Copy forwarded to

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR Dy. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free