Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 2192/Del/2016 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mercury Rubber Mills, Vs. DCIT, 16, Mercury House, Circle 19(1), Community Centre, New Delhi. Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. PAN : AAAFM8804G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Ms Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 31.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 ORDER PER BENCH: The above two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 14th March, 2016 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11, respectively. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
These appeals were first fixed for hearing on 14.11.2018 and since the Bench did not function, the appeals were adjourned for hearing on 31st December, 2018. However, when the name of the assessee was called, there was no one present for the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment of the appeals was filed. It was further seen that the assessee was requesting for early hearing of the appeals. However, despite service of notice the assessee did not appear. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals filed by it. The appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:-
1. 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”
2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.”
3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.