SHRI ARVIND SUKHANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. Case was earlier fixed for hearing on 19.12.2018, and the same was adjourned to 30.01.2019 for non-appearance of the assessee and notice fixing the date of hearing for 30.01.2019 was sent through RPAD and the Acknowledgment Slip is placed on record. On 30.01.2019, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the Arvind sukhani, AY:2014-15 assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance.

We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then it is at liberty to do so for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.