SMT. HAFISA A. KHALIQUE KOTHIWALA LEGAL HEIR OF ABDULKHALIQUE G. KOTHIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BHARUCH

PER DIVA SINGH, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the 1. correctness of the order dated 07.07.2015 of CIT(A)-3, Vadodara pertaining 2010-11 assessment year on various grounds. However, at the time of hearing no one was present on above of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice, despite this the assessee remained unpresented. The record shows that the appeal was adjourned. On the written request of the assessee on 07.12.2018 in the presence of the parties, accordingly since the assessee despite being aware of the chosen to remain unpresented. Considering the fact that on each of the occasions the appeal come 2. for hearing i.e. 24.05.2018, 11.07.2018 and 07.12.2018 the assessee sought adjournments. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the assessee may not be seriously pursuing the appeal by the appeal is dismissed.

Smt.Hafisa A.Khalique Kothiwala Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Bharuch/ITA No.2939/AHD/2015/A.Y.2010-11 3. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the appeals of the assessee are liable for dismissal in the light of judicial pronouncements by Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Others 118 ITR 461(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” Further, the Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default their lordship observe as that “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 paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” Further, in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del).