Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: NA Samarpan Charitable Trust, Vs. CIT(E), C/o M/s Anuj Goyal & Co., CAs, 5, Ashok Marg, 204, Deep Complex, Lucknow. Begum Bridge Road, Meerut. PAN : AAOTS0768H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2018 ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th March, 2015 of the CIT(E), Lucknow, passed u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that on earlier occasions the matter got adjourned three times due to non-appearance on behalf of the assessee/at the written request of the assessee. Today also, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. The notice sent to the assessee has been returned by the Postal Authorities with the remarks “No such Trust at this address. Returned.” The assessee has also not provided any new address where the notice could be sent. This type of conduct on the part of the assessee shows that it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed by it. The appeal filed by the assessee is, 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.