Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH&
The instant appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders dated 01.02.2016 and 19.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the ITO, Ward – 13(3), Ahmedabad under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post as per the address given in Column No.10 of Form No. 36. However, at the time of hearing neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue his - 2 - Shri Rajendra Jibhai Barot vs ITO A.Y. 2010-11 case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-vs-B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar-vs-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However the assessee is at liberty to apply for the recall of the order within the prescribed time after furnishing the suitable reasons for non- appearance. Hence the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.