What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. In the absence of the assessee's appearance or request for adjournment, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

The assessee filed appeals for assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09. Notices for hearing were sent, but neither the assessee nor their representative attended the hearing, nor was any adjournment requested.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or seek adjournment.

Vemuri Venkara Rao, Hyderabad vs DCIT | ITAT Visakhapatnam 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

For Respondent: Shri G. Guruswamy, DR

Hearing: 24.10.2016Pronounced: 24.10.2016

PER BENCH:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the identical orders of the CIT (A), Guntur dated 28.3.2013 for the A.Ys.

2004-05 to 2008-09. 2. In these cases, notices were issued fixing the cases for hearing on 24.10.2016 and the notices of hearing were duly sent

by Regd. post. However, on 24.10.2016, neither assessee

attended nor there was any request for adjournment. In these

circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeals. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr.,

118 ITR 461 that appeal does not mean only filing of Memo of Appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal

have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution,

as held by Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Courts and also following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan

(India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late

Tukojirao Holkar 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss the appeals of the assessee for want of prosecution.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. The above order was pronounced in the open court on 24th Oct’16. (जी. मंजुनाथा) (वी. दुगा"राव) (G. MANJUNATHA) (V. DURGA RAO) लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER 0वशाखापटणम /Visakhapatnam: 4दनांक /Dated : 24.10.2016 VG/SPS आदेश क$ '"त6ल0प अ7े0षत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ# / The Appellant – Mr. Vemuri Venkata Rao C/o P. Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1st Floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82. 2. '(याथ# / The Respondent –The DCIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada 3. आयकर आयु:त (अपील) / The CIT(A), Guntur 4. आयकर आयु:त/ The CIT(Central), Hyderabad 5. 0वभागीय '"त"न=ध, आय कर अपील,य अ=धकरण, 0वशाखापटणम / DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड" फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER

//// वAरBट "नजी स=चव (Sr.Private Secretary) आय कर अपील,य अ=धकरण, 0वशाखापटणम / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM

VEMURI VENKARA RAO,HYDERABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments