Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ashok Kumar Malhotra, New Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 March 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may treat an appeal as un-admitted and dismiss it in limine where the assessee, having sought adjournments, fails without any request to appear at the hearing and shows no interest in prosecuting the appeal; mere issue of notice does not by itself amount to admission of the appeal, and the absence of a need or desire to prosecute is a reason the Tribunal may consider in dismissing 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 `A' NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERANDSHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBERI.T.A.No.1095/Del/2013Assessment Year : 2009-10Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra, vs Income Tax Officer,90/1, Malviya Nagar, Ward-37(3),New Delhi. New Delhi.(PAN: ACDPM5312L)(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by: NoneRespondent by : Ms Y. Kakkar, DRDate of Hearing: 23.2.2015Date of pronouncement: 02.03.2015ORDERPER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of

CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi dated 12.12.2012 pertaining to AY 2009-10.

2. This appeal was initially fixed for hearing on 2.1.2014 but was adjourned

to 2.6.2014 at the request of the assessee and later fixed for hearing on

23.2.2015 and both parties were informed. Today on 23.2.2015, no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was placed

before the Bench.

3. It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal

prosecuted. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao

Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at

the instance of the assessee in default, made the following observations:-

"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 paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference."

4. ITAT Delhi Bench 'D' in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.

38 ITD 320 observed that the provisions of Rule 19 state that mere issue of

notice could not by itself mean that the appeal had been admitted. This rule

only clarifies the position. There might be various reasons with the appellant to

remain absent at the time of hearing. One of the reasons might also be a desire

or absence of need to prosecute the appeal or liability to assist the Tribunal in a

proper manner or to take benefit of vagaries of law.

5. Respectfully following the precedents, the appeal filed by the assessee is

treated as un-admitted and dismissed in limine. We may like to clarify that

subsequently, if the assessee explains the reasons for non-appearance and if the

Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication

of the appeal.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02/03/2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 2nd MARCH 2015 'GS'

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR

By Order

Asstt.Registrar

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