Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH - ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A) – 6, Delhi dt. 12th January, 2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. No authorized Representative of the assessee appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal despite notifying the date of hearing through registered post. It therefore appears assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal.
3. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, finding support from the following decisions :
“In the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that :
“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.”
In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480(M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order :
“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.”
In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the reference filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which 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 reference filed by the revenue as un-admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.”
In the result, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same in limine.
Pronounced in the Open Court.