SHRI DIPAKBHAI D. PATEL,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, NAVSARI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत �यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT �ी सी.एम.गग�, �याियक सद�य तथा �ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1043/Ahd/2015 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dipakbhai D. Patel, 16 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shrikunj, Ashabaug Society , Ward-1, Navsari Navsari PAN:ABJPP3116E अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent

None िनधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क� तारीख/ Date of hearing: 20.06.2018 21.06.2018 उ�ोषणा क� तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-Valsad, dated 05.02.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. During hearing of this appeal, nobody is present for the assessee whereas the Ld. Senior D.R. is present for the Revenue. 3. The hearing of appeal was fixed for hearing on 15.05.2018 but notice received back hence, further notice for fixing the hearing on 20.06.2018 was sent through Learned Departmental Representative, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor

any application for adjournment application was received from the assessee at the time of the hearing. It seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal, therefore, it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. It was the duty of the assessee to make necessary arrangements for effective representation on the appointed date. Mere filing of appeal is not enough rather it requires effective persuasion also. In view of these facts, we are of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee is 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),

there was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date, hence, on the basis of inherent powers, the Tribunal treated the appeal; filed by the revenue; as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. 5. The order pronounced in the open Court on 21.06.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (सी.एम.गग� /C.M. GARG) (ओ.पी.मीना/O.P.MEENA) �याियकसद�यतथा/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद�यकेसम� /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सुरत Dated: 21st June, 2018 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant; 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent; 3. आयकरआयु� (अपील) The CIT(A), 4. �.आयकरआयु� /Pr. CIT 5.िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ D.R.-ITAT; 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard file ITAT. By order / / TRUE COPY / / 1. Assistant Registrar, Surat