Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S Rss Enterprises , Bangalore vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal20 March 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The assessee's appeal may be treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution where the assessee, having been duly notified of the hearing, neither appears nor seeks adjournment, such conduct showing it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; the filing of a memorandum of appeal does not by itself constitute effective prosecution of the appeal, which requires the appellant to pursue it.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL"B" BENCH : BANGALOREBEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No. 635/Bang/2014Assessment year : 2009-10M/s. R.S.S. Enterprises, Vs. The Income Tax Officer,No.22, Ist Floor, 3rd Cross, Ward 2(4),3rd Stage, BEML Layout, Bangalore.Panchasheela Park,K.R. Nagar,Bangalore - 560 098.PAN: BCCPS 7955RAPPELLANT RESPONDENTAppellant by : NoneRespondent by : Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)Date of hearing : 05.03.2015Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2015ORDERPer N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member

When the appeal was filed by the assessee, Acknowledge-cum-

Notice was given to the assessee in which hearing of the appeal fixed on

5.3.2015 was duly acknowledged to the assessee. However, none

appeared for the Assessee at the time of hearing nor any adjournment

petition seeking adjournment of the case was filed either. The above ITA No. 635/Bang/2014 Page 2 of 3

conduct on the part of the assessee shows that it is not interested in

prosecuting the appeal filed by it.

2. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule

19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the

case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del) we treat this

appeal as unadmitted. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya

Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs.

CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under:

"... 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."

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.

Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held

that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but

effectively pursuing the same.

4. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the appeal filed by the

assessee is dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. However, if the

assessee through proper application can satisfy the Tribunal the reasons

for such non-appearance on the appointed date, the Tribunal, at its

discretion, may consider recall of this order.

ITA No. 635/Bang/2014 Page 3 of 3

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated, the 20th March, 2015.

/D S/

Copy to:

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file

By order

Assistant Registrar / Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Bangalore.

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