Uni Sure Private Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal23 February 2015

CitationITA No.928/Del/2011

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal reasons that an appeal is not merely filed but must be effectively pursued, so that where the assessee, having obtained repeated adjournments, neither appears nor seeks a further adjournment and the notice of hearing has not returned unserved, the appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution. An appeal that is not pursued by the appellant, shown by non-appearance at a hearing of which notice was duly served, together with the absence of any adjournment application, may be dismissed for non-prosecution, the Tribunal drawing on the principle that a party whose appeal is not effectively pursued is not entitled to have it decided on the merits.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI BENCH : H : NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JMITA No.928/Del/2011Assessment Year : 2007-08Uni Sure Private Ltd., Vs. DCIT,2027/7, Chuna Mandi, Circle 18(1),Paharganj, New Delhi.New Dehi.PAN : AAACU4144N(Appellant) (Respondent)Appellant by : NoneRespondent by: Shri J.P. Chandraker, Sr.DRDate of Hearing : 23.02.2015Date of Pronouncement: 23.02.2015ORDERPER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM:This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

passed by the CIT(A) on 20.12.2010 in relation to Assessment Year

2007-08.

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

appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any

adjournment application also. Earlier, the matter was adjourned ITA No.928/Del/2011 2

many a times at the request of the assessee. The notice of hearing

was sent to the assessee which has not returned back unserved. In

these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested

in prosecuting its 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 ITA No.928/Del/2011 3

unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Appellate Rules, 1963.

3. We also observe that there is a defect in the appeal in that the

assessee has not filed Form No.35.

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

non-prosecution.

The decision was pronounced in the open court on 23rd

February, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 23rd February, 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