Ramo W/O (Late) Dharam Singh, Meerut vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal5 May 2015

CitationITA No.5418/Del/2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The assessee, having been granted early hearing at her own request and having received notice that was not returned unserved, failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing. In those circumstances the Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and held that an appeal which is not effectively pursued, as distinct from one merely filed, is liable to be dismissed 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 : SMC : NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JMITA No.5418/Del/2014Assessment Year : 2004-05Smt. Ramo, Vs. ITO,W/o (Late) Dharam Singh, Ward 2(2),C/o Shri V.K. Goel, Advocates, Meerut.282, Boundry Road,Civil Lines,Meerut.PAN : AGZPR8672G(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : NoneRespondent by: Shri J.P. Chandraker, Sr.DRORDERPER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM:This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orderpassed by the CIT(A), Meerut on 27.08.2014 in relation toAssessment Year 2004-05.

2. This is a case in which early hearing was granted for today, i.e.,

5.5.2015, at the request of the assessee. When the matter was

called up for hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the

assessee. Notice of hearing sent to the assessee has not been ITA No.5418/Del/2014 2

returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the

assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. The appeal

filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-

prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following

decisions:-

1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr.', 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held:

"The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it."

2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT', 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:-

"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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference."

3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd', 38 ITD 320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Appellate Rules, 1963.

ITA No.5418/Del/2014 3

3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for

non-prosecution.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 05th May,

2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated:5th May, 2015.

Copy forwarded to

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Dy. 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