Miss Lucy
← All judgments

The Institute Of Correctional ... vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal21 May 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The appeal is one that the appellant, having been directed to file concise grounds and then given notice of the hearing, failed to prosecute, and the Tribunal may dismiss it on that basis. Filing an appeal does not discharge the appellant's obligation; the appeal must be effectively pursued, and a party who has ceased to pursue it may 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 TRIBUNALCHANDIGARH BENCH 'B' CHANDIGARHBEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No. 1049/CHD/2013(Order under Section 12AA )

The Institute of V The CIT-II, Correctional Admin istration, Chandigarh . Sector 26, Chandigarh .

PAN: AAAJI0166R

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Jyoti Kumari

Date of Hearing : 21.05.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2015

O R D E R

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax-II Chandigarh dated 18.09.2013

rejecting the application for registration under section 12AA of

the Income Tax Act.

2. Earlier when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the

assessee was directed to file concise grounds of appeal.

Thereafter, notices were issued to the assessee and on the date

of hearing on 21.05.2015, none appeared on behalf of the

assessee despite service of the notice through Registered Post.

The assessee has also not filed the concise grounds of appeal

as was earlier directed. It, therefore, appears that assessee is 2

no more interested in prosecuting the appeal and the instant

appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed

3. In our above view, we get support from the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of CI T v. B.N. Bhattachargee and

another, reported in 118 ITR 46l [relevant pages 477 & 478]

wherein their Lordships have held that:

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

4. Our view further finds support from the following decisions also:

i) CI T v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd: 38 I TD 320 (Del)

ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP)

5. Respectfully following the decisions [supra], we dismiss

the instant appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21 s t May,2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21 s t May,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CI T(A), The CI T,DR

Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh

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