SICPA INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RG-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 25.03.2015 of C.I.T.(A)-3, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2009-10.

This appeal was listed for hearing on 10.08.2017. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 09.10.2017. Notice of hearing was sent by RPAD. However, on 09.10.2017 the bench did not function and the case was adjourned to 27.11.2017.. On that date none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The case was adjourned to 02.01.2018. Notice of hearing was issued by RPAD to the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. When the appeal was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice sent by RPAD has not been returned unserved. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we find support from the following decisions :- “1. In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachrgee 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 Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del), the appeal 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 appeal filed by the revenue as un admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.