THE HONAVAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,U.K vs. ITO-WARD-2, UDUPI

The present appeal is filed by the assessee, arising out of the order of the CIT (A), Mangaluru, dt.16.08.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13, on the ground that the lower authorities have erred in disallowing / rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s.36(1)(viiia) of the Act, amounting to Rs.7,84,266/-, which is 7½% of the total income.

We find from the order sheet that the case was initially posted for hearing on 03.02.2017, on which day nobody appeared but a written submission dt.30.01.2017 was filed expressing its inability to appear before us and requesting the bench to decide the appeal on the basis of the written submissions. But one more opportunity was given to the assessee to appear for hearing on 11.09.2017. Although the notice of hearing was sent to the assesse by RPAD, the assessee has not chosen to appear on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution.