Madhu Bhatnagar, New Delhi vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 5218/Del/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee fails to appear on the date fixed for hearing of its appeal and no request for adjournment is made, the Tribunal may infer that the assessee is not prosecuting the appeal and may dismiss it for non-prosecution, the appeal not meaning merely its filing but its effective pursuit. An appeal dismissed for non-prosecution is not a decision on the merits; the Tribunal may, on the assessee's application explaining the reasons for non-appearance, recall the dismissal order if satisfied that those reasons justify it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Madhu Bhatnagar, ITO, Flat No.553, Plot No.16, Ward-1(4) Sector-22, Bank Vihar, Dwarka, Vs. Ghaziabad New Delhi PAN:AIJPB3155G (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Judeja, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 13.04.2015 Date of pronouncement 13.04.2015
ORDER PER A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 06.08.2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
2. Today, i.e. on 13.04.2015 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed before the Tribunal. It seems that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:-
(i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that "The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it."
(ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order:
Page 2 of 2 "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, this court is not bound to answer the reference.
(iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
3. Therefore, keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc, then this order shall be recalled.
4. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.04.2015
-Sd/- -Sd/-
(R.S.SYAL) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:13/04/2015 A K Keot
Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT 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