Zeta Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal4 March 2015

CitationITA No.2474/Del/2013

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal holds that where an appellant fails to appear at the hearing, has sought no adjournment, and has not had the notice of hearing returned unserved, it may infer that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and the appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution. An appeal means more than the mere filing of it; the appellant must effectively pursue it, and a failure to do so entitles the Tribunal to dismiss it 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 : H : NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JMITA No.2474/Del/2013Assessment Year : 2009-10Zeta Investments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO,Basant Lok, Sangam Vihar, Ward 18(4),Jharoda Gaon, Mazra, Burari, New Delhi.Delhi.PAN : AAACZ1635P(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) on 28.3.2013 in relation to Assessment Year2009-10.

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. The notice of hearing sent to the

assessee has not been returned unserved. In these circumstances, it

appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. ITA No.2474/Del/2013 2

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.2474/Del/2013 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 04th March,

2015.

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

Dated: 04th March, 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