SMT. ANU MAUDGIL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appellant, Anu Maudgil , by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 25/02/2015 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2008-09. 2. In the aforesaid appeal, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 10/09/2018 and the case was adjourned to 27/11/2018 because the newly posted Sr. DR in ‘D’ bench is resuming duties from 11/09/2018. The next date of hearing i.e. 27/11/2018 was informed to both the parties in the open court, but the appellant has not preferred to put in his appearance himself or through his authorized representative nor sent any request for adjournment. So, it is apparent on record that the appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal.

Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing.

In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for want of prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on this 28th day of November, 2018.