MS. PUNEET SALUJA,MEERUT vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM:

Challenging the order dated 28.02.2014 in Appeal No.367/2013-14 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi (for short “CIT(A)}, for the assessment year 2007-08, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. When the matter is called today for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee by registered post to the address furnished in Form No.36. When the notice is sent to proper address of the assessee as provided by them in Form No.36 through Registered mail with postage prepaid, if the assessee was to be found therein, the notice would have been served. If for any reason the assessee is absent temporarily, it is for the assessee to make arrange with The Postal Department either to deliver it to some other person, or to re-direct it to an address where the assessee could be found or to detain the mail till the assessee comes back and claims the same. Even if the assessee shifts from that place, it is for the assessee to notify the new address either to the Revenue or to the Tribunal or to the Postal Department. Obviously the assessee had not taken any of these steps and the non-service of notice in this matter is solely attributable to the conduct of the assessee. Since there has been no representation for the assessee either in person or through his AR, it means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution.