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.
O R D E R. PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J. M. :
Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffar Nagar, dated 23rd October, 2013 for assessment year 2006-07 and dated
2 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1477 & 1478/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–07 & 2007-08 30th October, 2013 for assessment year 2007-08, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On the last date of hearing on request of AR, the appeals were adjourned to 26th September, 2017. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeals. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also passed ex-parte orders. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee are liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts of both the cases and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed, for want of prosecution.
The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under :-
3 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1477 & 1478/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–07 & 2007-08
"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 paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. "
Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.
Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeals for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeals filed, then it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application.
4 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1477 & 1478/Del/2014 Assessment Years : 2006–07 & 2007-08
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed, for non-prosecution.
9 The order is pronounced in the Open Court immediately after the hearing on : 26th September, 2017.