Sunridges Sporting Goods Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 2780/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal has inherent power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution where the appellant fails to appear on the date of hearing and no request for adjournment is made, and such non-appearance may be treated as indicating that the appellant is not pursuing the appeal. An appeal is not perfected by mere filing; it requires the appellant to effectively pursue it, and a party at whose instance a proceeding is initiated who fails to appear or take necessary steps may be dismissed for non-prosecution, the court or tribunal not being bound to decide the matter on the merits. A dismissal for non-prosecution is without prejudice to the appellant's right to apply for recall of the order, which the Bench may allow upon the appellant explaining the reasons for non-compliance and satisfying it that those reasons are sufficient.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 21.05..2015 Date of pronouncement 29.06.2015
ORDER
PER A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld CIT - Meerut dated 18.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
2. Today, i.e. on 21.05.2015 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:
"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 Page No. 2
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 29.06.2015.
-Sd/- -Sd/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:29/06/2015 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