Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Bonafide Exports, New Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal26 February 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A tribunal may treat an appeal as un-admitted and dismiss it in limine where the appellant, having been listed for hearing on more than one occasion, fails to appear and does not seek adjournment, indicating that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; such a dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant's right to seek recall of the order by explaining its non-appearance and satisfying the Bench.

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

Judgment

As delivered

ITA No. 2618/Del/2012Asstt.Year: 2007-08IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI BENCH `A' NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI N.K. SANINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERANDSHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBERI.T.A.No.2618/Del/2013Assessment Year : 2007-08Bonafide Exports, vs Income Tax Officer,C/o Chaudhary Pradip & Co., Ward-24(1),100/1, Guatam Nagar, New Delhi.New Delhi.(PAN: AAIFB5024H)(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by: NoneRespondent by : Ms Y. Kakkar, DRORDERPER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 30.3.2012 pertaining to AY 2007-08.

2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.12.2012, 16.5.2013 but on the

fixed dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Today on 25.2.2015, no

1 ITA No. 2618/Del/2012 Asstt.Year: 2007-08

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

2 ITA No. 2618/Del/2012 Asstt.Year: 2007-08

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 26.2.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

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

DT. 26th FEBRUARY, 2015 'GS'

Copy forwarded to:-

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

Asstt.Registrar

3

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