Raghunandan Chowdarapu, Hyderabad vs Assessee
- CitationITA.No.1457/Hyd/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal has inherent power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution where the assessee, having filed it, does not pursue it, evidenced by non-appearance on an adjourned hearing and a notice sent to the address in the appeal memo returning undelivered, the assessee having failed to notify any change of address. An appeal is not merely the filing of a memorandum of appeal but includes its effective pursuit, so that a party who does not pursue the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mr. Raghunandan vs. The Income Tax Officer Chowdarapu, Hyderabad. Ward 8(1) PAN ABJPC7438A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Mr. Ramakrishna Bandi
Date of Hearing : 19.05.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2015
ORDER
PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Vijayawada dated 15.07.2014.
2. In this case, the hearing was initially fixed before the Tribunal on 01.01.2015. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing therefore was adjourned by the Bench to 19.05.2015 with a direction to the Registry to sent a notice of the said hearing to the assessee by RPAD. On 19.05.2015, nobody however has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment is moved. It is also observed that the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address given in the appeal memo has come back from the postal authorities undelivered with a remark that "no such person at the given 2 ITA.No.1457/Hyd/2014 Mr. Raghunandan Chowdarapu, Hyderabad.
address". It appears that the assessee has not bothered to inform change of address, if any, to the Registry in order to enable service of notice of hearing. The conduct of the assessee thus is such that it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal.
3. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Another(SC) Supreme Court Decision dt,04-05-1979, 118 ITR 461(SC) at pages 477/478 that appeal does not mean filing memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent powers to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009.
4. Hence following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), as also the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), and further the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2010 in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009, we dismiss this appeal as un- admitted for want of prosecution by the assessee.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.05.2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 19th May, 2015 VBP/- 3 ITA.No.1457/Hyd/2014
Mr. Raghunandan Chowdarapu, Hyderabad.
Copy to
1. Mr. Raghunandan Chowdarapu, H.No.8-3-976/69, 301, JSR Residency, Shalivahana Nagar, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 073.
2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Hyderabad.
3. CIT(A), Vijayawada.
4. CIT-II, Hyderabad.
5. D.R. I.T.A.T. "A" Bench, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File
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