Suman Gandhi, New Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal17 June 2015

CitationITA No.603/Del/2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principles, stated in the order the order takes them: Where the assessee does not appear on the date of hearing and the notice of hearing has been returned unserved with the remark "left," and the assessee has not furnished any new address for service, the assessee is to be treated as not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and the appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution. An appeal does not mean merely the filing of an appeal; it requires the appellant to effectively pursue it, and a party who fails to do so may have the appeal dismissed for want of 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, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No.603/Del/2014Assessment Year : 2009-10Suman Gandhi, Vs. ITO,Flat No.70, A-1, Apartment, Ward 21(1),Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi.Delhi - 110 085.PAN : AGSPG1188R(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : NoneRespondent by: Shri Neehar Ranjan Pandey, Addl.CITDate of Hearing : 17.06.2015Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2015ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the

CIT(A) on 29.11.2013 in relation to Assessment Year 2009-10.

2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared

on behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee has

been returned unserved by the Postal Authorities with the remark 'left.' ITA No.603/Del/2014 2

The assessee has not filed any new address to which the notice of hearing

could be sent. 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 ITA No.603/Del/2014 3

appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Appellate Rules, 1963.

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

prosecution.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2015.

Sd/-

(R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 17th June, 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